Tuesday, 14 October 2025

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:22): I rise to speak to the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025. We are debating it this week, although it was expected to have been debated before the break. During the break there was some more discussion with the government and the opposition, which I will go into a little bit later. I want to put on record the work of the government and their acknowledgement of the concerns raised by the opposition. I understand that they will be moving amendments to that effect, which reflect those concerns, and will be doing so in the course of the debate. That will mean better outcomes for the community of Albert Park. There are a number of people I would like to acknowledge and thank for that, but I will do so further into the debate, with an understanding of what this bill is all about.

The purpose of this bill, as has been said by others in the other chamber, is to reflect the modern needs of the Formula One and MotoGP events in Victoria, which are growing in stature around the world. With the crowds that are coming they are increasing in scale and complexity. To ensure that there is community safety, the amenities are protected in the period before, during and after the annual event.

Just a bit of history on the grand prix: the Australian Formula One Grand Prix was first held in Melbourne in 1996 after being hosted by Adelaide for I think around 10 years. It was the then Premier Jeff Kennett who secured the grand prix for Albert Park and embedded Melbourne’s international reputation as a destination for major sporting events. Jeff Kennett was elected after years of the Cain–Kirner government, which left Victoria in a perilous economic state. At that time Victoria was drowning in billions of dollars in debt – and look where we are now: those billions seem so insignificant compared to the rising $200 billion debt bill that current and future Victorian generations will be paying down.

Unemployment rose and business confidence plummeted prior to the election of the Kennett government, and Victoria was really on the brink. Many of you in this place were probably in school and were unaware of the dire situation that Victoria was facing at that time. Some of you – I am not even sure – may not have even been around.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you, Ms Shing. But nevertheless some of us actually were in the workforce at that time and understand what was going on in Victoria during that period. It was dire – and they were long, dark years after the Cain–Kirner years – for Victoria’s international reputation and our reputation as being a strong economy. Mr Welch just referred to it, actually, in his members statement, talking about the benefits and the wonderful state that we were and we are. What happened during those times was some significant decision-making. It was the good stewardship of the Kennett government that brought responsible financial and economic management back into Victoria. Jeff Kennett’s leadership did that, and as part of that, it was secured, this international event. So when I look at where we were then and where we are now, it feels like deja vu with our current debt spiralling out of control.

Victoria is now the highest taxed state in the nation. Jobs are being lost. As we saw a few weeks ago, ANZ is shedding thousands of jobs. Businesses everywhere are saying the tax grab from Jacinta Allan and the government is killing confidence and making it so much harder to be competitive. Only yesterday – and this has also been referred to in debate today – there was an article around some figures. I think you can toy around the edges, but the sentiment is there. Victoria is in a very perilous situation. When business groups come out and talk about Victoria being in economic decline and increasingly becoming irrelevant to the national and international business communities, this is of concern. It was these same issues that Jeff Kennett and the Liberal government were facing in the 1990s around the perilous situation that we were in. The article of yesterday is saying that this is not working. Titled ‘Jobs wake-up call’, it says that the economy is in decay as taxpayers fund employment growth. The government sector is employing Victorians rather than the private sector. That is what Labor does not understand. They do not understand how economies actually work and what is going on. They just see jobs. Their focus is on government jobs. There is a role for government jobs – of course there is – but what we are seeing is cuts in government job areas as well that are really stifling improvements in the services that need to be delivered to all Victorians.

I am increasingly concerned that those opposite do not understand the situation that we are in. They do not acknowledge it or understand it. I am really not surprised given there is very little business acumen sitting on the front benches of government, either in this house or in the Assembly. In fact the Premier and the Treasurer both come out of political offices. That is about the extent of their expertise until they were elected to Parliament. That is not the way to understand these business groups who are raising the call around the situation in Victoria. They should be taking notice of that and not brushing it aside. It is truly concerning, the situation where Victoria is at.

It is in contrast to the then Premier Kennett’s leadership, which brought that renewed vision and revitalised Victoria after those dark days of the Cain and Kirner years. Today we are reaping the benefits of that vision, of revitalising Victoria and bringing confidence and these events into the state. Today the Formula One Grand Prix at Albert Park remains a lasting legacy of the Kennett-era vision.

It was, as I said, Premier Jeff Kennett’s leadership working with other significant leaders at the time, such as the late Ron Walker, who was then chairman of the Melbourne Major Events Company and a former Lord Mayor, that was instrumental in bringing the grand prix to Melbourne and fighting off challenges from international entities who also wanted it – Malaysia and China. We nabbed the race from Adelaide. Now what is happening is that the Premier over there is nabbing business from Victoria and taking it over to Adelaide, offering far more attractive taxation and business opportunities. I personally know people that have left this state to go and set up their business outside of Victoria. It is not a fiction, it is fact. It is happening.

Nevertheless, I digressed slightly, but I gave that background because the grand prix has a proud history in this state. Yes, there have been people that have been opposed to it – there were at the start, I acknowledge that, and we do understand the disruption to the local community during that period – but it is an exciting time for the state. In saying that, I have never been to the grand prix.

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: No, I have never been.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: I can hear it, and I love the buzz of it. I think it is the most beautiful setting around Albert Park Lake looking on to the city, and I think we are incredibly fortunate to have such a backdrop as our beautiful Melbourne city for this event. This year I understand that there was a record crowd of more than 465,000 people. They came from around the world, they came from around the country and they came from around the state to join in. I have to mention the local hero – that is, Mr Piastri – whose family is in Brighton in my electorate, I understand. They must be very, very proud of their son and the extraordinary efforts he has made in this elite sport. Without doubt it is a very important event in Melbourne’s sporting calendar, and it does generate significant economic activity for Victoria, including more than 1600 jobs in the construction, hospitality, tourism and transport industries during that important period.

To get to the nub of what this bill does and the key clauses, clause 22 extends the race period from seven to 21 days. This has been a contentious part, given it is taking the disruption of the local area and amenity from a week to three weeks. The government has cited safety concerns around that and vandalism and all sorts of things. My response is that you need to be putting in more security so the vandalism and graffiti and wrecking of equipment does not occur. It is sadly an issue that is running rife across our community with an increase in crime. They are low-level crimes, graffiti and vandalism, but nevertheless those low-level crimes, as we know, actually extend into more major crimes. Victoria is in the grip of this crime crisis where some of the crimes that are occurring are just absolutely horrific.

This has been contentious because of the issue around access. I am really pleased that through the opposition’s dealings with the government and a commonsense and reasonable approach, the community will be allowed to have greater access than what the original bill or the non-amended bill, the bill we are debating today, was allowing. I understand that the government will be tabling the map that has been provided to the opposition, which outlines the exclusion areas but also highlights the access areas for community sport groups, for businesses and for residents and the community to be able to access during this three-week period, excluding the seven-day period, which has always been the way. That is obviously when the race is running and they are setting up, and clearly it would be very dangerous for people to be on that circuit when the race or the preliminary scheduling is being undertaken. I will have more questions about access and what that means.

I want to take up the community groups in this point, and I want to acknowledge the work of a number of them. The Albert Park Sports Clubs Association and the president, Hugo Armstrong, who I have spoken with at length, and I know he has spoken to my colleague Sam Groth on numerous occasions, has been a great advocate for the community and for those sporting groups. I want to just thank Hugo for the work that he has done on behalf of the sporting groups and the community to ensure that we got a somewhat better outcome than what the bill in its original form was going to do. It is about having that ability for groups to utilise the sporting facilities. There are sailing groups, there are cricket teams, there are football teams, there are a whole range of other sporting facilities, such as rowing that occurs on the lake. It is a magnificent precinct in my electorate and it really does cater for a lot of people within that area, not only the Albert Park area but also Prahran. The golf course does not just cater for those in those areas. They get people from all over Victoria and Melbourne going to that range, and it provides a fabulous sporting amenity as well. I would urge all Victorians to get out and do as much sport as they can, whenever they can. I do want to place on record and thank those people that have reached out to me, spoken to me, met with me and discussed their concerns. They may not be entirely satisfied, but I am hoping that they will be somewhat understanding of the improvements made after the work of the opposition with the government over the break that we have just had.

Clause 15 addresses changes in the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s insignia and intellectual property. Basically that has not changed since 1995, so it is updating the list of protected logos and expressions to reflect changes over time. This is just a modernisation of what is required. I think there is absolutely no problem with any of that.

Clause 25 increases the payment from the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to Parks Victoria. I will come back to this in relation to other tenants and the changes that the opposition has been able to secure. But what this does is increases an annual payment to Parks Victoria from $100,000 to $200,000. This amount has not changed since 1994. It is not a huge amount to reflect probably what was required over the last 30-odd years, but nevertheless it is an improvement, and the bill will enable future payment increases through regulation.

Clause 26 of the bill, which is an important part of the bill, also enables the grand prix corporation to host non-motorsport events that are not Formula One events or motorsport events, with ministerial approval. This allows for things like exhibitions or concerts or other sporting activities that could benefit from using the grand prix corporation’s resources without imposing an additional burden on the Victorian taxpayer, and I say anything that does not impose a further burden on the taxpayer is a good thing. So I commend the government for this initiative, because the taxpayer is already paying a huge amount in relation to a whole range of issues, notwithstanding the support, obviously, that they give to this event, but as I mentioned at the outset, the economic situation that we are in with the spiralling debt is going to actually put a further burden on Victorian businesses and families in the current period and in generations to follow.

The last thing I want to say around the main provisions of the bill is on clause 17, allowing the minister to make appointments of acting members and acting chairs of the board, rather than the Governor in Council, very uncontentious.

But can I say again, I did want to just explain a little bit more. I hope that the government will be moving those amendments so that it is very clear for the house and for those that are watching this debate that it has been through that advocacy from the opposition where we have been able to ensure that the government adopts some new protections.

I have mentioned those in relation to access, and I am hoping that this map that I have got, which I presume is what the government is going to table, will go into a bit more explanation. Also, there is the creation of a comprehensive annual compensation scheme for tenants affected by the extended race period. This applies to any tenants, any businesses or sporting tenants or anyone there, who is affected by the race period, who is involved and who has signed a lease post-1994 and up to 1 January of next year. So it is anyone who has currently been impacted, because the original bill only compensated those that were affected prior to the grand prix coming to Victoria. This is a catch-up to ensure that those tenants who are financially impacted are actually compensated. That was a very strong issue that was raised with the opposition, and it is one that we have taken to the government. I am glad that that is being acknowledged and will be addressed.

Again, those public access areas that I spoke about will give greater transparency and accountability for the public in relation to the access areas. They must be declared within one month of the annual declared area of the grand prix, when that is undertaken. The minister must have regard to operational requirements and safety considerations when declaring areas and race periods, of course. As I said, this map that highlights public access will be made available and tabled today as part of this debate so that we can get the transparency that the community rightfully expects. I think it will give certainty and clarity to many people who have had concerns. Again, I want to thank them for speaking with me and my colleagues and ensuring that we got further improvements to this bill, and I want to thank the government for taking on, in good faith, those concerns from the opposition so that we have got a better outcome for all concerned.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:42): I rise to speak on the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025, a bill which is important to protecting the future of two of Victoria’s most cherished major events: the F1 grand prix, which takes place at Albert Park Reserve, located in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region; and of course the MotoGP, which takes place on Phillip Island. We know that the grand prix is not just a popular event enjoyed by people from all over the state but is also a significant driver of tourism that brings people to Victoria. This year for every $1 which the government invested in the grand prix, the state saw more than $3 worth of economic impact. It is not just a massive sporting event for Victoria but for the whole world. Furthermore, we know that the equivalent of 1631 full-time jobs were supported by the economic impact of the grand prix.

There are many factors that go towards making Melbourne the successful cosmopolitan, international city that it is today. It almost goes without saying that one of those factors is the major events that we put on. These contribute to making Melbourne an appealing tourist destination. If someone comes from overseas to spend any given month in Australia, the chances are that they will be at a major event of some kind happening right here in Melbourne during that month. After all, Melbourne is the sporting capital of Australia. It might be the Australian Open, the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, the Boxing Day test, the Melbourne Cup, the AFL Grand Final, the grand prix or something else, but the chances are when people are flying in for a sporting event in Australia, it is right here in Melbourne. It is such an important idea that there should always be something interesting going on whenever people are in the city. There is always something happening in Melbourne. It does not just contribute to attracting tourists, it also contributes to attracting business investment in our economy. Businesses know that in Melbourne there will always be something getting people out and about, always something bringing in tourists, always something to get people excited about, and that allows them to have far more certainty when they are making decisions to invest in Victoria. Whether it is the footy, the tennis or the grand prix, businesses can always expect a steady influx of tourists into Melbourne.

Of course these events are not just about bringing in tourists, they are also there to be enjoyed by Victorians and Melburnians themselves. It is something that we all take pride in and something that makes Melbourne such an attractive location for people to move to. It is one of the reasons, among many, that people who move here choose to stay here. Melbourne is consistently growing. We are now larger than Sydney, and by 2050 we are going to have the same population that London has today. We are a growing international hub, and that is in no small part because we remain the chosen destination for all the major sporting events throughout the year in Australia and the world.

To the substance of the bill, one of the most important amendments of legislation contained in the bill is the change to the maximum length of the official race period – that is, the period of time when the Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) has exclusive access to Albert Park. In previous decades the existing seven-day period was more than sufficient time to build and dismantle the necessary infrastructure. However, in 2025, with the scale of the event so much bigger than it was nearly 30 years ago, the process of construction of the Australian Grand Prix is just on a far larger scale. The issue of safety is more apparent than it was all those years ago.

The bill seeks to increase the maximum race period to 21 days, allowing the AGPC to spend more time preparing for the race. The grand prix is a hugely popular event that has called Melbourne home since 1996, and it has grown rapidly. Ms Crozier made the comment before: ‘Where were you in 1996?’ I can tell you I was appointed as an organiser for the Transport Workers’ Union in that year, and one of my first jobs was working on the grand prix on the monitoring committee. I just want to shout out to all the unions through Trades Hall and their affiliates for all the work they do on the grand prix, because it is a huge event where you have got to do a lot of work in a short amount of time, and particularly for the Transport Workers’ Union, when everything that comes into the precinct comes in on wheels – from the racing vehicles that are coming in from the airport into the precinct and from the aviation fuel that the helicopters use for ferrying people around to all the food and all the infrastructure that is brought in on trucks. The union movement has played a very important role in making sure that everything that is done in that precinct is done safely and in a timely manner.

At the 2025 Australian Grand Prix there were over 465,000 attendees. That makes it the largest Australian Grand Prix ever, with the highest turnout from attendees across the world – nearly half a million attendees this year. We know this figure will continue to grow in the coming years. The first Australian Grand Prix in Albert Park back in 1996 had 150,000 attendees on that race day. We can see just how much that number has grown in just 30 years. Making public access to the park a priority, with several provisions guaranteeing local and community access to the park during the 21-day period, this bill introduces a mechanism which will allow the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to allow public access to the park when safe to do so during the race period. That means the community will still be able to access Albert Park while giving the AGPC management teams the proper timeframe to set up the grand prix in preparation for higher attendance numbers.

The bill sets out that this process will be done in consultation with and with the approval of the minister so that the minister and the government as a whole can ensure the best possible outcome for the community each year. The bill seeks to balance public access with public safety. With this bill, the local residents in my community of Southern Metro will have the assurances that they can continue to access Albert Park when it is safe and proper to do so, and the grand prix corporation can safely and steadily prepare and pack up the event with a longer timeframe. My local community under this legislation will continue to have access to Albert Park. This is important not just for local community groups and individuals but for local businesses who depend upon access to Albert Park as well.

Another important aspect of the bill is the provisions which have been created to allow the AGPC to hold non-sporting events. Through this measure the bill will allow the AGPC to create a more dynamic events calendar for the community, and it enables the corporation to then raise additional funds through these events, thereby reducing their dependence on government contributions. Raising revenues from these alternative streams means the government will not be obligated to provide as much supporting finance for the race each year, and the AGPC can be more dependent on its own income sources. This can help create more events happening in the local area and more economic activity to benefit local businesses. Of course the process for proposing and applying for these events is extensive, and under the legislation the minister will be required to judge them according to criteria that will include financial sustainability and the impact on Albert Park tenants.

By giving the minister direct oversight and authority to approve these extra events, it means that events will be overseen with close analysis before proceeding.

Victoria is this country’s major events capital, and through this $350 million redevelopment of the racetrack we have secured the F1 here in Melbourne until 2037. This is great news, not just for us in this generation of F1 fans but for the next generation who will have the security of knowing that F1 will still be in Melbourne more than a decade from now. By helping the AGPC rely less on government support and contributions and more on their own revenue streams, through extra events and so forth, this bill is giving F1 fans the opportunity to experience more events throughout the year and giving the grand prix corporation the financial security to keep events going for many years to come.

For such a large-scale development, especially when it comes to taking place at such an important location as Albert Park reserve, consultation with the local community is always important. The consultation process closed recently on this project. In this process members of the community were invited to send their responses and feedback on the project. This gives the government information about how different types of people use the park in different ways. We need to hear from businesses located in the park, workers, visitors, sports clubs and those who use the parks and any sporting facilities, residents who live near the park, dog walkers and anybody else who might use the park. We can use this information to work with the AGPC as well as the council to ensure minimal disruption to public access and that we can work around and protect what members of the community value most.

We in this state have shown for nearly three decades that the F1 and the amenities of the park can coexist peacefully. The F1 and the work of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation have brought strong economic investment and activity to my community in Southern Metro over the past three decades, and under this bill that will continue. It will bring more investment and opportunities for businesses and open up opportunities for more F1 and sporting related events at Albert Park.

No matter what time of year it is, there is always something going on in Melbourne. It is because of deliberate investment by the Victorian government over many decades into the cultural and social life of this state, bringing the Australian Open, the grand prix and many other global events to Melbourne, and we should be proud of that work. This bill is an effort to make sure that we keep this up. It helps us make sure the grand prix can continue to thrive in Melbourne, with more events and with a larger window to prepare for the annual race.

The bill also, importantly, helps ensure that we can keep access to Albert Park safe and open for the community as much as possible while allowing the AGPC to safely set up the race each year. These reforms address a serious public safety concern associated with the large influx of attendees at the Australian Grand Prix. We were of course overjoyed to see the record number of attendees at the 2025 grand prix, which amounted to nearly half a million people. But as I have already set out, it is becoming increasingly logistically challenging to prepare the course within one week of the F1. With the number growing ever since it came here nearly 30 years ago, it only makes sense that the AGPC has to scale up its operations. But that also means that we need to give them the flexibility and the space to properly set up for the event so that all attendees, staff, drivers and everyone can stay safe at the grand prix. While not having quick access back to Albert Park may not be a point of contention for some in this community, it is important to note that this is done for the safety of the public.

What is more, it is also for the safety of the workers. With nearly half a million attendees, more foot and road traffic means more complex management strategies, both in the lead-up to the grand prix and during the event. To meet that challenge, it only makes sense that we give the AGPC more time and flexibility to prepare and manage. Once it is safe to return to the park, where the course was, the public will be allowed back in. It is being done in a transparent, timely and cooperative manner to ensure that the event can go ahead as expected and the community can be kept safe as well.

This bill also provides for the continued operation of most venues and businesses within the impacted area within Albert Park. Take, for example, the Lakeside Stadium, the Albert Park driving range and the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre. They are all likely to remain at least partially open while some alternative access arrangements are in place during this extended two-week period. Moreover, members of the general public will continue to have access to numerous sporting clubs and venues which will not be affected by the extended race period. This means minimal impact on local businesses and sporting groups, who can continue to thrive and provide for the local community. That way we can give businesses the confidence that they can continue to keep their doors open and that the local community can continue to enjoy the facilities they need.

As I set out already, the Australian Grand Prix is one of the most important sporting events in the year, not just for Victoria but for Australia. The economic, social and cultural benefits the grand prix has brought to Melbourne over the years are quite significant. I have already mentioned the $3 of economic activity for every $1 invested in the event, but that is before we mention the positive benefits of tourism. People from all around the world converge in southern metro to see Albert Park Circuit, filling up the hotels, the restaurants and the bars. International investments in Melbourne are a good thing for Victorians as a whole. The importance of the grand prix sits in the minds of not just Australians but F1 enthusiasts around the world. It is an extraordinary privilege to host the F1 here in Melbourne, and I am proud that it is right here in the heart of my community in Southern Metro. It brings a vibrant community together, helping businesses all around Albert Park and Melbourne as a whole, and it brings with it tourists from across the globe.

This bill gives the AGPC the flexibility to continue to safely prepare for and manage the grand prix for the safety of the workers and the general public who use Albert Park regularly. We hope to see the grand prix continue to grow in popularity and attendance as the years go on. It is a big event for Southern Metro and for Victoria that continues to provide strong economic and cultural benefits for the state. I share the excitement of many Victorians excited for the next race in the 2026 Australian Grand Prix. I am even more pleased to see the Allan Labor government is taking the right steps to ensure the safe and continued orderly management of the grand prix at the Albert Park by the AGPC in my community of Southern Metro. I commend the bill to the house.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:57): I rise on behalf of the Victorian Greens to speak in opposition to the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025. It was a moment of brief hope when we saw that the government last sitting week before the break had failed to so far secure support to bring this bill on for debate. It is with great disappointment but not much surprise that I rise today, realising that the Liberals have rolled over and once again we are going to see Labor and Liberals team up to put big corporate interests ahead of those of the local community – disappointing but not surprising. We see it so often, and we have been seeing it in the community in the inner south, which gets taken over by the grand prix every year. We have continued to see both major parties put those corporate interests ahead of the local community time and time again.

For those sitting on the government benches, I think you should take heed that Ms Crozier was pointing out that you are continuing the great legacy of Jeff Kennett in locking the people out of Albert Park for years and years to come. We are seeing late breaking developments in terms of amendments being cooked up between the government and the opposition, once again the two old parties just putting corporate interests ahead of the local community.

This bill does three big things that everyone in Victoria who loves Albert Park and who uses it as a public place and understands the value of public land – land to exercise in, walk in, socialise in and simply enjoy for its green space – should be worried about. Firstly, this bill, as has been canvassed, triples the maximum race period from seven to 21 days, meaning a much longer period where the community are locked out of their and our public park. Second, it centralises control with the Australian Grand Prix Corporation by letting it declare which parts of the park the public may access during that longer lockout. Third, it broadens the corporation’s ability so that it can run minister-approved non-motorsport events anywhere in Victoria but also more events within Albert Park outside of that 21-day grand prix race period.

The bill obviously raises human rights and charter issues. The government’s own statement of compatibility acknowledges that the bill limits the charter right to freedom of movement. For up to 21 days each year now residents will be barred from a Crown land park that is reserved for public recreation. Labor say that by locking up the park for three weeks they are enhancing community safety, which seems to be their justification for all sorts of things these days. They have provided, though, very little evidence in support of this notion. I note that the Liberals were very concerned about this a few weeks ago, and I wonder if they have been able to secure any evidence from the government. Certainly the Greens asked the minister’s office for further details on safety issues, and what we were sent through was unconvincing and certainly did not justify an additional lockout period keeping people out of the park and stopping people from traversing what is a really well used commuting and recreational area.

In fact we have heard from local park users that the proposed lockout period and the extension of the grand prix’s infrastructure and reduction of public access to the shared paths within the reserve can create their own safety issues, as people who, for example, jog, walk or cycle through the park making use of those safe pathways and shared pathways are now going to be forced onto busy roads. Sports club association president Hugo Armstrong, who I note is in the gallery today – thank you for joining us – has written to me and advised that no evidence has been made public about the reasons for the alleged necessity of the bill. The government has been unable to identify any specific instances of members of the public being injured as a result of the installation or the bump-out of the GP infrastructure. So I call bunkum on the government’s supposed justification for this. This is a land grab, pure and simple. It is a deal for your mates at the grand prix corporation that is going to lock our community out of this park, and we are not convinced by your weasel words around safety. You are just doing the grand prix corporation’s bidding today.

Other cities that host the F1 seem to have no problem holding their corporations accountable to run events safely in a short number of days. In his speech in the other place, the then shadow minister for major events Mr Groth convincingly outlined what occurred just last year in Las Vegas, where the race shuts down the centre of the city, the famed Las Vegas strip, for a few days. F1 seems to be able to set up and pack down safely in that city and in other major cities around the world, so why do we get such short shrift here in Melbourne?

The safety that the government does seem fixated on is actually safeguarding the opportunity for Liberty Media to continue to make obscene profits, while the Victorian government hands over eye-wateringly large sums, nearly half a billion dollars this year given the $350 million gift to upgrade the pit buildings. And it continues to be the government, or rather Victorian taxpayers, who bear the financial risk here. We pay at least $100 million annually in public funds to cover the shortfall of running this event. Liberty Media Corporation, which owns the F1, last year made billions – yes, billions of dollars – in profits, yet here we are in a debt-trapped state handing over nearly half a billion dollars in subsidies to a private corporation.

Save Albert Park, an amazing community group which has been advocating for decades since the Kennett era to protect this park, points out that the decision to give $350 million to construct a permanent pit building and corporate facility extension in Albert Park reserve was announced at the same time that this government tried desperately to hide its funding cut of $2.4 billion from Victorian state schools – an absolutely glaring illustration of this government’s priorities. For years Victoria’s Auditor-General and reputable economists, including Professor John Quiggin, have found that the grand prix, even accounting for tourists, does not deliver an economic benefit. And we will hear the same lines trotted out by the minister, I am sure, but the same government refuses to release detailed information around attendance figures or analysis to back their claims up. I know that for many years Save Albert Park have been trying desperately to get more information on attendance figures, but the government fights them at every turn.

The public consultation for this bill should certainly be in the running for this year’s Clayton’s consultation award. There was just a two-week period provided for community feedback. Even local stakeholders that have had good relationships around the staging of this event in the past, such as the City of Port Phillip, have called out how rushed the consultation period was in their submissions. Other community groups, such as Save Albert Park and the Albert Park Sports Clubs Association, are similarly critical of the lack of opportunity for discussion and proper public participation in this huge decision to lock the public out of one of Melbourne’s largest parks.

The Greens have three amendments to this bill in my name, and I ask that those be circulated now.

At a high level these amendments achieve three things. Our first amendment seeks to retain the existing lockout at seven days, not the proposed 21 days in the bill. I understand it was big words from the Liberals around whether or not they would actually stand on the side of the community in opposing the extension of the lockout period, but the Greens have always proposed to bring this amendment forward, and I will do so today. Let us be clear about the change on the ground that the bill seeks: the 21-day race period is three times the current maximum exclusion that has been operating and has been sufficient for the past three decades. That is why communities are outraged at this extended land grab. We understand that there are going to be house amendments circulated which may tinker with this provision. What we have been able to glean is that there will be access protected through designated zones. The amendments that we understand the government will be moving outline more powers for the corporation and more powers for the minister. But let us be clear, they will still allow the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to vary access as it sees fit. These amendments provide no certainty for the community and no security of access to the park during that time. The tenor is: trust us. But honestly, given Labor continually sells out park users, that trust has been well and truly eroded over the years. You can tinker around with this, but the government is still proposing to extend the race period lockout and bar the community for three weeks from this park. So our first amendment seeks to retain the existing one-week exclusion, which is bad enough.

Sports clubs that keep the precinct alive year round are already at the end of their tether. Rowing and sailing programs are losing water time at the peak of their seasons. School, sport and community competitions are displaced, and in even an ordinary year closures, truck movements and traffic management do restrict park use and limit public access. And let us be honest, this impact goes on for far beyond the lockout period: up to four months either side of the race weekend is not uncommon. So during the committee stage I will certainly be seeking clarification from the minister on whether this extended lockout period that they are proposing is going to be part of or in addition to the usual reduced access that sporting clubs and other park users are suffering while the grand prix goes about its business.

The community, sports clubs and residents are also very worried about the cumulative environmental impacts. Redevelopment around the new pit building has already involved trees being chopped down, with more being marked for the chainsaw as works proceed. Our parks are not staging pads waiting to store equipment and machinery for a multinational; they are our urban lungs, and they are community space. As we look towards 2050 and we see the greater density that is going to occur across Melbourne, this highlights even more strongly that green and treed space is needed and valuable and will become even more necessary, especially in a built-up area like the inner south. Activities that require and accelerate tree loss and hard surface expansion in Albert Park should be resisted for the generations currently using it and the generations that are to come.

The bill also allows the corporation to run events inside the park outside this 21-day period, even if they are non-motorsports events and even if they need to be minister approved. The stated policy intent here is ‘diversifying revenue and reducing reliance on government funding’, which would certainly be welcome, but I doubt that it is going to eventuate. The obvious policy route to reduce reliance on government funding is to limit or stop the subsidies that the government already gifts to this giant corporation. If a commercial event cannot break even, it should not be happening – certainly not taking over our public space. But I make the point that this shift will create yet more incentives to continue to monetise public land, and the bill creates no mechanism to match this increase in corporatisation of the land with any kind of community oversight mechanism – no binding access plan, no independent monitoring of noise, traffic or ecological impacts tied to these additional events. It looks like a blank cheque to me, and I am very worried about the additional impact that this is going to impose on the community. Labor, if you extend corporate powers, you should be expanding oversight and community power as well. Shame on you for not doing that and on the opposition for rolling over so easily on this bill and selling out the community.

The second amendment the Greens have prepared seeks greater transparency in relation to board appointments, with any appointment of the chair or board members of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation requiring (1) public notification via the Government Gazette that a position is vacant and (2) a cooling-off period of two years before a person can seek appointment if they have served as a minister, cabinet secretary, parliamentary secretary or ministerial officer recently.

We want to end the shameless merry-go-round of people who have served as ministers and then get appointed to the board, either as members or chair, which does nothing to remedy the feeling in the community that big corporate interests are easily finding the ear of the government of the day and that environmental and sporting groups as well as the general community are getting overlooked in favour of those big corporate interests. Our amendment is simple, and it does not require a wholesale change in the recruitment process, just that it is made public that there is a vacancy and the imposing of this cooling-off period for former ministers, cabinet secretaries, parliamentary secretaries or ministerial officers. One would think, or hope, that this sort of oversight would be an easy thing to implement and not bar people from seeking positions but help to increase the sense of transparency and the sense in the community that the appointees to this board are acting in their interests and that the government of the day is not looking to advance corporate interests over those of the community.

Our third amendment increases the payment to the committee of management, Parks Victoria, to $500,000 rather than the $200,000 proposed in the bill. The bill has, in a welcome step, doubled the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s annual payment to Parks Victoria, which was set at $100,000. As has been noted, it was set in 1994 and has not changed for 30 years and is clearly completely obsolete and nowhere near what is necessary to contribute to the needs of the committee of management today. Two hundred thousand dollars, though, is an insulting token in the context of a really heavily subsidised event and substantial public works that are already green-lit to benefit the grand prix corporation within the park precinct. Given the scale, half a million dollars, being invested in the grand prix, a flat $200,000 contribution basically is a rounding error and is grossly disproportionate in terms of actual park usage. Only 5 per cent of visits to the park are for grand prix attendance. Ninety-five per cent of visits to this park across the year are not for the grand prix. They are by people for walking, running, swimming, playing sport, socialising and using the green space to improve their physical, mental and spiritual health. Our amendment is proposing $500,000, but we acknowledge that this is also probably very much at the low end of what is actually needed. If this place and this government were serious about fairness, they should be tying the payment much more closely to the actual costs and impacts borne by Parks Vic and the tenants with a ring-fenced community fund for grassroots sport, biodiversity and path upgrades. Our amendment would be a good step towards that.

As I mentioned earlier, we have not had access to the government’s house amendments for long, but I will make just a few comments on those. We have heard from some stakeholders that, based on discussion between the government and the opposition, there may be some access to the aquatic precinct near Albert Road during this three-week shut-out period, but none of the access agreements are in the bill itself. We are left speculating as to what those will be and who will be able to contribute to the setting of those. As far as we understand, these amendments that the government is putting forward have not been discussed or negotiated with a number of stakeholders and users of the park who have spoken to us in terms of how the amendments will impact them or how to ameliorate any impact. In terms of the compensation that the government might be considering, I will make the same point: Albert Park tenants we have heard from have not been involved to date with these discussions or negotiations. The current compensation is based on a really limited and outdated legislative provision, as I have said, and a number of confidential direct arrangements between the AGPC and tenants. A clearer and more comprehensive legislative mechanism is obviously needed to remove much of the uncertainty and the ongoing losses that park tenants currently face. Whether these new arrangements are going to go closer towards fairness or match those losses will only be known once the legislation is put into place and its mechanisms are clarified. We do not have that information before us today to understand if they are going to be effective or not. The Australian Grand Prix Corporation still appears to have the power to vary access arrangements as it sees fit, even with these government amendments.

We see that the bill continues to not offer security of access to park users, even with these amendments. This bill and the Labor government continue as well to ignore the broader issues around the massive imbalance and the rivers of government money being spent on the grand prix versus the trickle of money for anything else, and the many other very worthy users of the Albert Park reserve.

We all want Melbourne to thrive as a major events capital, but responsibly run major events respect their neighbours. The government’s own messaging on this says that the race is locked in until 2037 and that it attracts huge crowds. But if that is the case, why, oh why, do the community continue to get so short-changed? We needed binding access windows, transparent cost-sharing and co-governance that included council and the park users, not these discretionary public access areas that can be redrawn and revoked by the promoter and the government of the day. Even supporters of the race can see that that is a problem. A longer race period lockout might make logistics simpler for the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, but once again it offloads risk, inconvenience, lack of access and lack of amenity onto residents, clubs and schools who share this park all year. It is not unreasonable to ask that before you triple the lockout, you hardwire in protections that the community could have enforced, not rely on good intentions. This is public land. It is a public park. It is not just an opportunity to erect private fences, and the community’s rights do not evaporate each time the grand prix roars into town. It would have been nice to see Labor and the opposition do more to protect those rights. The Greens will be opposing this bill.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:17): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and make a contribution in support of the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025. Calling Victoria the home of big events is a bit of an understatement, I think. We have hosted some of the biggest and best attractions, not only in the country, but arguably in the whole wide world. Victoria does it better and bigger than anyone else. From the Australian Open to the AFL Grand Final, from the Boxing Day test to the NFL coming to Melbourne in 2026, our state has more than earned its reputation as Australia’s sporting capital. These events are part of who we are as Victorians. They bring people together, they drive tourism, they fill our restaurants and hotels and they remind the world why Melbourne and Victoria are such special places to live and visit.

An absolute staple of our major events calendar is the F1 grand prix, and for nearly 30 years the grand prix has been a crown jewel for Victoria’s tourism sector. Thanks to the Allan Labor government, it will remain here until at least 2037. The grand prix is not just for motorsports fans, it is for every Victorian whose job, business or community benefits from the flow-on of a thriving visitor economy. The numbers speak for themselves when it comes to the benefits that the F1 brings to our state. Attendance has grown from just over 300,000 in 2014 to a record attendance of more than 465,000 this year. The grand prix created over 1600 jobs in 2025 and brought in over $300 million to our state’s gross state product. The race is not just watched in Victoria either. It is broadcast into key tourism markets like China, India and Japan, reaching over 78 million viewers worldwide. You see, that is tens of millions of people seeing Melbourne, seeing our skyline, our culture and our parks, and planning, I hope, for their next trip here. I would also like to add that some of those watching are from interstate, like my most beloved uncle.

The Australian Grands Prix Act 1994 has been the legislative foundation for this event for three decades. It established the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, or the AGPC, which is responsible for staging the Formula One Grand Prix at Albert Park and the MotoGP at Phillip Island. But as with any piece of legislation that has been on the books for that long, it needs updating to reflect the scale and complexity of the event today.

This bill updates the act to ensure the grand prix can continue to deliver safely, efficiently and in a way that balances the operation of the event with the needs of the local community.

For me, I have got to say that when the first bill passed in 1994, it was not long after I had actually stopped living in St Kilda. It was then a smaller event with fewer moving parts. Today, however, it is the largest temporary street circuit in the world, with more infrastructure, more vehicles and more workers involved in setting up and dismantling the track than ever before. Under the current act the race period can be declared for no more than seven days. Thirty years ago that was fine, but today it simply is not enough time to safely build and dismantle an event of this scale. Compressing all that work into a single week puts unnecessary pressure on the workers and increases the risk for pedestrians and cyclists who continue to use parts of the park during the set-up and the pack down. That is why one of the main aspects of this bill is the extension of the maximum race period for up to 21 days, and that additional time is not about extending disruption, it is about making the event safer and better managed. I have taken the time to in fact meet with a series of workers that will benefit from the proposals that are contained in the bill.

I know that Albert Park is one of Melbourne’s most loved public spaces. It is used by more than 7 million people each year, whether it is for rowing, walking, cycling, golf or recreation, and this bill recognises that. In the weeks before and after the race hundreds of heavy vehicles and forklifts move through Albert Park, transporting concrete barriers, steel structures and large pieces of equipment, often while cyclists, runners and dog walkers are still using the same road, can I just say. This bill has gone to WorkSafe for their consideration, and they support the 21-day race period in the bill, recognising that having more than just one week will mean higher safety standards.

The bill creates a clear framework for the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to keep as much of the park open as possible during the race period for as long as it is safe to do so. The corporation will also have to be transparent about its decisions. It must publish all access determinations in the Victoria Government Gazette and on its website after consultation with the minister, which allows for oversight over decision-making and gives the public proper awareness of decisions made by the AGPC. The bill allows the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to temporarily close a public access area for up to three days if it determines that doing so is necessary in an emergency or for public safety reasons. If a longer closure is required, the corporation will be required to either reopen the area after three days or formally vary or revoke the public access declaration through the proper processes.

The bill also strengthens support for Parks Victoria, which manages Albert Park. The annual payment from the grand prix corporation will double from $100,000 to $200,000 – and can be increased further through regulation, might I add. That reflects the significant work Parks Victoria does, such as managing tenants, maintaining infrastructure, overseeing repairs and ensuring that the park remains in good condition after the event. This increase essentially brings the figure in line with inflation since the 1990s and recognises the critical work that Parks Victoria does year round to keep the park in a safe and great condition. So thank you so very much to the team at Parks Victoria. It is recognition that hosting an international event of this size has an impact on the park’s environment and on the park’s facilities and that Parks Victoria deserves the resources to meet those responsibilities.

Another key reform in the bill allows the grand prix corporation to host non-motorsport events, subject to ministerial approval. These could include concerts, cultural festivals or community activities that use the same infrastructure and expertise the corporation already has. Any proposal must be submitted at least six months in advance and include full operational, security and safety information. The minister must consider factors like the event’s financial sustainability, its impact on Parks Victoria and park tenants and the level of community consultation undertaken. The change gives the corporation flexibility to generate new revenue and make better use of its resources, reducing reliance on government funding while creating more opportunities for Victorian workers and suppliers.

The bill also makes a few small but sensible governance changes. It allows the minister rather than the Governor in Council to appoint acting members and an acting chairperson of the corporation’s board. This allows for greater continuity and less disruption if there is a vacancy, or indeed an unexpected absence, may I say. It also updates the definition of the ‘grand prix insignia’ to better reflect modern branding and some of the promotional practices that are at play right now, ensuring that our laws protect the current event’s identity, not just the version of 30 years ago.

I am going to finish with a little fun fact if I may. I know that I have time left on the clock, but I will let you know that in the time it has taken for me to make my contribution, the pride of Melbourne, Mr Oscar Piastri, would have done 12 laps of the track. I will leave that one with you for some thinking. That is quite an extraordinary feat. Can I just wish Mr Piastri all the best for the rest of the season.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): An interesting fact to ponder.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:26): I rise to speak on the Australian Grands Prix Amendments Bill 2025, and in doing so I believe that our party will not be opposing this bill. It is something that pleases me, because I am a very strong supporter of the Australian Grand Prix.

The bill will amend the Grands Prix Act 1994 to extend the duration of the race period from seven days to 21 days. It will allow the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to host non-motor sport events, which is a little bit exciting to see – to think about what else we might be able to do around the grand prix. It will broaden the powers to declare public access areas and also vary or close off public access areas by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation with ministerial approval. It will increase the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s financial contribution to Parks Victoria from $100,000 to $200,000, and it will allow these contributions to be increased through regulations. It will also update the definition of the ‘grand prix insignia’ and transfer power from the Governor in Council to the minister to make acting appointments to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation board.

Personally, I have always been a huge fan of the grand prix. My father was actually friendly with Stirling Moss, so our family has been a grand prix enthusiastic family for many, many years. I remember when my sister got married in 1988 that the grand prix used to be on the second Sunday of November. My sister got married on the second Sunday of November in 1988. In her wedding video as we were getting ready at the house– everyone was doing make-up and hair and starting to have photography and everything – you can see and hear all the way through this video my sister and I just saying, ‘What’s happening with the grand prix? Who’s winning now? Who’s in front?’ We were more concentrated on the grand prix than we were on the wedding at that point in time. Through Dad’s association with Stirling Moss, I have also had the great pleasure of being involved in the grand prix on race day, going around the track in an open-air Aston Martin, with Stirling driving that car on the track with all of the crowds there that day. I have also had the pleasure of having a ride in the two-seater car twice: once around the grand prix track on grand prix day, and once up and down High Street in Shepparton, when the grand prix corporation came to Shepparton to promote the grand prix.

Shepparton also has a very special connection with the grand prix at the moment, because we very proudly claim Oscar Piastri as one of our own. Oscar’s parents Nicole and Chris both grew up in Shepparton, and Oscar’s grandparents, Kathy and Del Piastri and Hugh and Robyn MacFadyen, are very well known and very well loved members of our community. We embrace Oscar as our own, and I look forward most Sunday nights to sitting up at all sorts of silly hours of the morning watching Oscar and cheering him on. I have to say I agree that he is getting a very hard time at the moment. McLaren should realise just how lucky they are to have Oscar Piastri driving with them. They should get behind him and promote him as their number one driver rather than the other driver they have, who tends to do a lot of whingeing rather than winning.

The opposition will not be opposing this bill. The Formula One Australian Grand Prix is an incredible, world-class event that brings visitors from all over the world to our city here in Melbourne. We could not buy the publicity we get internationally. Much like the tennis, the amount of people who watch the Australian Open tennis or the Australian grand prix on TV, whether that be in America or whether that be throughout Europe or in any other country in the world – that sort of publicity is absolutely amazing for our city and our state, and we need to keep some of those really iconic events here in Melbourne so that we can keep getting that international exposure. The numbers have grown every year, and 2025 saw a record-breaking 465,498 attendees visit Victoria to watch the absolute best drivers compete against each other in the fastest and most thrilling motorsport competition in the world. When you have a world-class event on the global stage with all eyes watching Melbourne, it is essential to make sure that the operations run smoothly, that international visitors have a great experience in Victoria and that local businesses reap the economic benefits of the race.

This bill makes several minor but sensible amendments to the grand prix act, and we support measures that make the event better and safer for everyone but also more exciting for everyone. And I have to say that that record attendance last year of 465,498 will be broken this year, and I know that will be broken because I buy tickets to the grand prix. I buy them for my nephews also for Christmas, four-day passes. Usually we have been in a grandstand for those four days; this year I could not get a ticket. I do not have a ticket for the grand prix – Minister, are you listening, because I do not have a ticket to attend this year and I am very upset about it. But hopefully I will be able to score one between now and the grand prix and get there to cheer Oscar on on the day.

As a Liberal I proudly acknowledge the important role that Jeff Kennett and his government played in bringing the Australian Grand Prix to Victoria, and part of that also was Ron Walker. Ron Walker and Jeff together were a powerful force. They were visionary leaders who saw the potential that Melbourne had to deliver an outstanding event in this city, and they showed dogged persistence in taking hold of that opportunity. They secured the contract in 1993 to bring the race here from 1996 onwards, and since then the popularity of the race has continued to grow. The grand prix event makes a huge contribution to the Victorian economy, increasing state GDP by an estimated $323 million.

However, it is worth noting that the state subsidises the event to the tune of around $100 million, and that amount has been going up every year. There is a real concern that the taxpayer is being asked to pay more and more money for what should be a commercially successful event. It is crucial to ensure that the race is financially sustainable into the future and will not become a burden on taxpayers. The member for Nepean noted in his contribution to the debate in the other place that former Premier Daniel Andrews personally took over contract negotiations from the then Australian Grand Prix Corporation chairman Paul Little and chief executive Andrew Westacott, and reporting by Chip Le Grand in the Age revealed that Victoria’s contract extension to keep the Australian Grand Prix contained a previously undisclosed provision that the state would meet the cost of new or substantially refurbished corporate hospitality facilities. This is expected to require the government to invest over $350 million in a new pit building. Investment like this is appropriate when it creates a positive return to the state’s economy, but an event like the grand prix is not a blank cheque for the government to splash taxpayers money around without accountability.

This bill will allow the minister to approve the Australian Grand Prix Corporation hosting non-motorsport events, and it is essential that this power is used responsibly.

We cannot allow non-sporting events to create further dependency on taxpayer subsidies and payments from the government, adding further to Victoria’s sky-high debt that has been run up under this Labor government, which will reach almost $200 billion. Some of these non-motorsport events could actually make money and subsidise the grand prix if they were run properly – if they were run like a business. What needs to happen here is we need a Liberal minister running the grand prix because we run things like a business. We will run that to be a benefit to the state, not a burden on the state. Non-motorsport events must be revenue positive and support the financial position of the corporation to ensure the grand prix is fiscally sustainable.

It is important to acknowledge that while the race brings hundreds of thousands of visitors to Melbourne and delivers a boost to the economy, closing the area off seriously interrupts recreational use of the park, which is public land that is supposed to remain open for the enjoyment of all Victorians. There are numerous community groups and everyday users of Albert Park who will be impacted by the lengthier closures of the area when the race period is extended: joggers and golfers, commuters who cycle through the park to get to work and sailing and rowing clubs. People who normally ride their bike through the park are diverted onto busy roads with heavy traffic during the race period, and this increases the danger that riders face and needs to be considered. We must also remember that while many businesses benefit from the influx of visitors, many other local businesses have their operations disrupted every year by this event.

My apartment here in Melbourne is very near to the Exhibition Building, and I do remember when another large event here in Melbourne, the flower and garden show, was under threat because residents who lived around the area near the Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens were upset because the gardens are closed for a period of time when the event is on – for the two weeks of the event and also a week before and a few days after while there is set-up and pack-up of the event, as well as the time that the event is open. I could understand why some of the people who live in that area and who use the park regularly were upset by this, but in reality it is a short period of time that allows for these major events to happen in our city. What I enjoy about the flower and garden show is watching other people enjoy those gardens. The gardens that those who are live in the area enjoy year-round do not actually belong to those people, they belong to the people of Victoria. What we see is more and more people enjoying the Carlton Gardens when the flower and garden show is on.

Whilst we want to make sure that there is not too much interruption to the people in the Albert Park area, that they do still have access to their parks et cetera and the businesses still are profitable, it is good to see other people enjoying that parkland as well. But it does not need the entire park locked off when the grand prix is being set up, and I am quite sure that there can be an arrangement come to where there are select areas rather than the entire Albert Park area being locked off for the three weeks when they want to do that before the event. This is a big impact that an area closure has on residents and everyday users, as well as the local businesses, and it is vitally important that the government actually do proper consultation before making big changes to the time period that the Albert Park area can be fenced off from the public. But typically for this Labor government, these changes were announced as a surprise to locals, who were not given an opportunity to have their say. The government cannot be surprised that people object to things when the government just surprised them with these announcements. The member for Prahran in the upper place, who represents her constituents that live very close to the race zone, noted in her contribution that even the Port Phillip deputy mayor Bryan Mears did not get any prior notice about the proposed 21-day closure of Albert Park Reserve. If deputy mayors are left in the dark, how must ordinary residents feel to have this surprise pushed on them? Residents have learned to live with the traffic, the noise levels and the restrictions of their movements, but imposing further restrictions should not happen without first giving them a chance to express their views on any proposal.

The changes in this bill are minor and we are supporting them, but the lack of consultation beforehand is typical of the Labor government that has become arrogant and thinks it can do whatever it wants. We are going through this in northern Victoria at the moment with a change to the Central North renewable energy zone, which happened with no consultation. To go from a draft report that had REZs in it, that people were able to do consultation on, to a final report that has a completely new REZ that no-one has been consulted about, no-one has been able to give feedback on, is just shocking.

One final concern for me in this bill involves the payment made to Parks Victoria. The bill increases that contribution from $100,000 to $200,000, but there is no guarantee in the bill that this money will be used for site remediation at Albert Park. Therefore Parks Victoria could use it for anything – to pay for more bureaucrats or other Parks Victoria projects. (Time expired)

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:41): The Libertarian Party does not oppose large events and does not oppose sometimes having these events in public places, but what I do oppose is subsidising these events when they are uneconomic in their own right. As has been pointed out, hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent on subsidising the grand prix.

I want to bring up something that has not been brought up in this debate, and in fact it has not been brought up a lot at all. It is something that really concerns me and I think needs to be addressed by the grand prix corporation. In June 2022, and you might remember we were quite busy with the pandemic and stuff back then, there was a report, a scientific study by Melbourne University, and it was titled – the quite unappealing title, I might add – ‘Field-based distribution and bioaccumulation factors for cyclic and aliphatic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in an urban sedentary waterbird population’. What they did was they studied the swans at Albert Park Lake for PFAS, and what they found was very concerning. Now, if you know anything about PFAS, you will know that in high concentrations it gets concentrated in eggs, in particular, and can cause birth defects and all sorts of other serious problems. I will quote from the abstract of this report:

Environmental concentrations of PFASs were consistent with a highly impacted ecosystem and notably high concentrations of perfluoro-4-ethylcyclohexanesulfonate –

also known as PFECHS –

were detected in water … and swan serum … In the absence of creditable putative alternative sources of PFECHS input to the lake, we propose that the use of high-performance motorsport vehicles is a likely source of contamination to this ecosystem.

We have a scientific report that says straight up that it thinks that the lake and the birds have been poisoned by chemicals that are being used by the grand prix, and yet no-one is talking about who is going to clean this up, who is going to pay to clean it up. I tell you what, I am sick of the taxpayers being the ones to pick up the bill for these things. What should happen is that the EPA should get out there and figure out what the hell is actually going on with these swans and whatever other contamination there is. I note that earlier today we were talking about Albert Park Lake, and there are already restrictions on catching fish – you are meant to release them back because of mercury, apparently. They need to figure out what is going on here and find out how this PFAS got there and who is responsible for it. One of the things that I found out – I have actually spoken to scientists about this – is that one of the reasons that they cannot confirm definitively is because the chemicals that they are using here are so unusual, but they are all top secret. Everything that they use for the lubrications and all these other things that they use in Formula One is all top secret, so they cannot get samples of it, they cannot test against it. I think it is absolutely outrageous. The EPA needs to get out there and figure out what the hell has been going on, and if it turns out that this contamination was due to the grand prix, then the grand prix corporation needs to pay to clean it up, not the Victorian taxpayer.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:44): I rise to make a contribution to the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. The Legalise Cannabis Party is, let us say, a broad church with a diversity of opinions on most things – apart from the legalisation of cannabis, on which its members are in lock step. In contributing to this debate I am mindful of the differing views of our supporters. A great many of our supporters absolutely love the grand prix. They reckon it is the best weekend you can have in Melbourne – and who can blame them? There is no question that the Australian Grand Prix at Albert Park is one of the great sporting spectacles in the country. It is a fabulous, well-organised event that puts Melbourne on the global stage, attracts thousands of people to Melbourne and creates jobs for locals. Legalise Cannabis also has supporters who absolutely loathe it. To them it is nothing more than an overpriced behemoth run by billionaires that has cost this state hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade. They consider it a grotesque celebration of fossil fuel consumption and environmental vandalism at a time when we are witnessing climate-fuelled disasters every other day. As I said, we are a broad church with many competing views.

Recently a review was conducted into the grand prix by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) and the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions. We have not seen that review. It has not been made public, but we understand that the bill before us acts on the recommendations of that review. At the end of the day we are extremely supportive of the rights of people to participate in the grand prix, and we have no issue with improving governance of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation board and other provisions of the bill. However, I am mindful of the competing needs of the open space areas used during the bump in and bump out of the grand prix and during the race itself.

The fact is the people who live in this area are extremely inconvenienced by the grand prix, particularly those who regularly use the Albert Park reserve facilities, and that includes local residents, schools, sailing and rowing clubs and visitors to the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre. That adds up to about 7.2 million users per year. Currently the park is completely inaccessible for a seven-day period, with ongoing restricted access to parts of the park in the lead-up and post-race periods due to all the infrastructure installation and dismantling. The government is seeking for that exclusion period to extend from seven days to three weeks. The justification for this is that the grand prix’s attendance has grown such that the AGPC simply does not have time to set up the necessary infrastructure in seven days. The safety of the general public was cited as a concern. Apparently people have been walking onto the site during set-up. There were also security concerns following some incidents of vandalism.

While I am sure the AGPC would appreciate the additional two weeks, nothing has essentially changed. Why does the AGPC need an additional two weeks to set up? The government has failed to make the argument as to why exclusively blocking access to Albert Park for an additional two weeks is necessary for safety or security. If the Las Vegas Grand Prix can manage the race set-up while avoiding a complete lockout up until the day before the actual race, why cannot we do the same? Why should the local communities be further disadvantaged and lose their amenities for three weeks in the absence of a compelling argument from the government? There has to be a balance. The residents of Albert Park and surrounds already have to endure a great deal before, during and after the grand prix.

The government has moved some amendments around the declaration of public access areas to ensure that the people affected by the closure get sufficient notice and to give some more flexibility for park tenants seeking additional compensation. We have no problem with supporting those amendments. The Greens will also be moving amendments which seek to remove the clause enabling the public access exclusion zone to extend to 21 days, increase the legislated payments to Parks Victoria from $100,000 to $500,000 and prevent any person who has served as a minister, cabinet secretary, parliamentary secretary or ministerial officer at any time in the preceding two years from being appointed to the board of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. These are sensible amendments which we are happy to support.

We can also support the opposition amendments, which are similar in scope. We were not given those to review beforehand.

While we are on the grand prix – I know this is not the issue that the many stakeholders we have been contacted by are considering right at the moment – why are they subsidising this? We are being told to tighten our belts. We are seeing continual cuts to community services. For example, Parentline is being cut after 25 years of operation and will cease to operate at the end of this month. At a time when youth mental health issues are surging, we cannot afford the $1.3 million to fund a service that takes up to 18,000 calls each year from distraught parents. But we can afford to subsidise a multibillion-dollar company to the tune of over $100 million last year.

What is more, the government has expended $350 million to upgrade the Albert Park pit lane. But is this included in the claimed benefits to the community? We just do not know. Why are we not at least asking for a meaningful contribution rather than the 25 cents per $200 ticket price? That is right – of the $200 you will pay for a ticket, 25 cents goes back to the government. We are told that the grand prix brings in $3 for every dollar spent by the state, that it employs thousands of people and that it increases tourism. But much of this is taken on faith. There is no transparency around the costings and benefits of hosting the F1 grand prix. The calculations are totally opaque.

As I said, we support the right of people to participate in the grand prix and will be supporting this bill with the amendments, but there is no doubt that this is a costly event for the people of Victoria, and it is something that should be considered when important services are being cut elsewhere. Whatever benefits the grand prix may bring to Victoria, it should not be a one-way street.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:52): I rise to speak on the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025 and wish to outline my concerns with this piece of legislation. The government’s main reason for the introduction of this bill and the for the most contentious part of it, the extension of the declared race period, was safety concerns on the site. These concerns are real and legitimate, and we do not deny that. This is to be expected, hosting an event with such a significant bump-in process and so much public interest in a usually public place. It is the reason why for weeks, including the last sitting week, I attempted to work with the government in good faith to try and make this bill more acceptable. Unfortunately we were not able to get into a position with it that I could support. Unsurprisingly my main concern with the bill is the extension of the declared race period – or, to call it what it is, the lockout period. This would give the Australian Grand Prix Corporation the powers to lock the public out from the park for 21 days. This is a significant increase from what it currently is, at seven days. It is not clear to me that the extended lockout period will entirely fix security and safety issues on the site, and at the end of the day, people will jump fences.

This is a case of a global conglomerate coming in and steamrolling a local community. Based on my discussions with those in the local community, it is not only just not fair; one of the things that they want to see in return for this is an acknowledgement of the significant disruption to the park that they use 365 days a year. We also are not just talking about any park here. The Albert Park reserve is the largest community sporting precinct in Victoria by a considerable margin and the second largest in Australia. Parks Victoria estimates that Albert Park reserve has 7.8 million visits per year. It is thought that only 6 per cent of these are actually for the grand prix.

To remind the chamber, the Australian Grand Prix runs at a loss. Victorian taxpayers are left to prop up the event, with the government spending over $100 million on it last year alone. Altogether, almost $650 million has been spent on it since 2015. This is only expected to grow, and it does not even include the more than $350 million commitment to rebuild the pit building and Paddock Club corporate entertainment area. This sits in contrast with Parks Victoria’s annual operating budget for managing Albert Park reserve, which is only just over $4 million. Excluding the grand prix, the state government has not funded a single major sports-related infrastructure project within Albert Park reserve since 2018, and this is one of the conversations that I have been trying to have with the government in relation to this bill.

The proposed increased payment from the grand prix corporation to Parks Victoria from $100,000 to $200,000 is a start, but still not nearly adequate. I will be supporting the amendment from the Greens to increase this to half a million dollars. Over recent weeks I have been in contact with representatives of the Albert Park community to really understand some of their concerns. I particularly want to acknowledge Hugo Armstrong, president of the Albert Park Sports Clubs Association, and Kelly Brennan, convenor of the community group Lake ALIVE! They, alongside the rest of the local community, have been outraged by much of what has been proposed in this bill. There is actually no way to be sure of the full extent of the concerns raised by the community, and unsurprisingly, the government is yet to publish the engagement summary report from the consultation it ran on this bill. I have heard a deep sense of frustration from the community that the grand prix gets whatever it wants. It disturbs the park for months at a time, all while community needs are ignored. Melbourne is already lacking in access to green open spaces. This bill would further restrict access to one of the most valuable and treasured parks in an area that is experiencing rapid densification. The government’s house amendments do make improvements to the bill, but they are largely just tinkering around the edges. I do, however, particularly welcome the new compensation scheme, which really should have just been operating already.

It will come as no surprise that I would also like to touch on the grand prix’s impacts to the wildlife in the park. Studies have shown a major increase in stress levels in the lake’s black swans during the construction and during the race. In the 2025 event there were several incidents of wood ducks on the track, and 15 birds a week were dying from a botulism outbreak. While I did not quite get there with the government on this bill, I would like to thank the minister’s office for their ongoing conversations on this bill and listening to and hearing our concerns. I want to be clear that I am not anti grand prix. I think it is a good event for Melbourne, and the benefits that it does provide to our local economy cannot be ignored, but that should not come at any cost.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): In the absence of any further speakers, the minister to sum up.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (15:57): I thank all members who have contributed to this debate in the chamber and in the other place. It is great to see so many people have indicated their support for this bill. Of course I also acknowledge those that have got questions and issues, and obviously we will deal with many of those issues in committee. Members have raised concerns with the extension of the race declaration time, in particular around the impacts it will have on public access and the local community. The grand prix’s attendance growth, the government argues, is driving greater operating and infrastructure requirements for the event. The Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) constructs the equivalent of half the MCG in temporary seating. The attendance, as we have heard, has increased by 42 per cent since 2019. The extended race period will allow essential works to occur to set up the grand prix within the controlled environment, reducing safety risks, increasing security and protecting the public.

To give an example of a key safety concern in the week prior to and post the race period, there are multiple cranes lifting concrete barriers on a public road whilst cyclists, pedestrians, scooters and cars attempt to make their way through these areas. The advent of social media has also contributed to a situation where fans come into the park and seek to take selfies on the road and in construction zones before the park shutdown. Indeed I have been advised that some people have even had wedding photos taken. The AGPC has provided numerous examples of safety incidents which have occurred within Albert Park during the construction of the temporary circuit in the period before and after the existing seven-day race period. These include pedestrian and cyclist injuries, members of the public entering construction zones and vehicles crashing through fencing and driving erratically on the track. In early March there was even an unauthorised car club meet-up, creating safety hazards for the public and for workers.

In addition, there have been several security incidents, including track damage, fires lit on the track, vandalism and theft, including cables cut and stolen.

WorkSafe Victoria supports the 21-day race period to achieve safety within the controlled management environment. WorkSafe has told us that the 21-day race period will help resolve a lot of key issues for contractors onsite to get the job done safely, with exclusion zones. The chief executive officer of WorkSafe also wrote to the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC Ben Carroll on 9 September outlining their concerns with safety at Albert Park under the current arrangements. This letter outlines the safety concerns for workers and for members of the public, and I am happy to table this letter for the chamber. Anyone deserves a safe workplace. People cannot enter worksites or construction sites freely to wander around. It simply is not safe, not for the public and not for workers. You either believe WorkSafe – you trust their expert advice – or you do not. Either you support safety for workers and the public, or you do not. Either you support the grand prix, or you do not.

To maximise community access to the park during the race period in a safe manner the bill proposes to allow the AGPC in consultation with the minister to declare public access areas. These will include parts of Albert Park which are not required for the construction of temporary infrastructure for the event. I have also been advised that the AGPC and the minister will declare the following areas for public access during the extended race period, outside the current seven-day race period that is currently in place. They are Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre, Lakeside Stadium and areas north and east of it to enable access to the lake, South Melbourne Primary School, the Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School, St Kilda Park Primary, Melbourne Golf Park, Middle Park Bowls Club and sporting fields to the south-east of Albert Park Lake. This provision ensures that we can maximise community access to Albert Park whilst managing the safety risks.

I am also aware that members raised concerns that the bill allows the AGPC to potentially run other events in Albert Park and about what that might mean for the community. Currently the AGPC is authorised to host motorsport events, including the Formula One Grand Prix and the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix. This power extends to related events, like Glamour on the Grid or a concert performance staged during the grand prix and MotoGP. The bill provides the AGPC with the ability to host any type of event that is not a motorsport event or Formula One event. Whilst there are no current plans to hold additional events, this will enable the AGPC to pursue additional fundraising opportunities to help reduce its reliance on the Victorian government’s annual funding contribution.

It is important to note that other events can only be held with the approval of the minister and can be held statewide in other locations, not necessarily Albert Park. I would also reiterate that no motorsport event can be held at Albert Park other than the grand prix during and outside the race period. When considering an application, the minister may consider a wide range of criteria, including financial sustainability of the event, potential impacts on tenants or the committee of management if the event is proposed to be held at Albert Park, operational matters such as traffic or security and any other matter the minister considers relevant, so any future decisions around this will come with proper accountability and will follow a proper process.

I have also been advised by the minister in the other place that Parks Victoria will establish a new Albert Park advisory committee to facilitate better engagement with the broader Albert Park stakeholder group. The advisory committee will act as a forum for Parks Victoria as the committee of management for Albert Park to consult with stakeholders on matters relating to the operations and management of the park. The advisory group will comprise representatives from the diverse mix of Albert Park stakeholders, including indoor and outdoor sporting groups, lake users, commercial and trader tenants, local government, TOs and of course the AGPC. In regard to concerns about the payment to Parks Victoria, the AGPC is legislatively required to pay Parks Victoria an amount up to $100,000 per annum. The amendment proposes to increase this figure to $200,000 to keep up with inflation.

This increased payment will enable Parks Victoria to better perform its support duties. It is also the sum that was requested by Parks Victoria. The bill also enables future payment increases to be prescribed in regulations, allowing for adjustments to reflect Parks Victoria’s evolving funding requirements for the grand prix. While some members have also raised concerns about this amount being insufficient, this new mechanism makes it easier for the payment to increase in the future to support the important work that Parks Victoria does.

I would also like to speak to one of the amendments that I understand the Greens members are putting forward regarding the Governor in Council appointments to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) board. The government’s appointment and remuneration guidelines, which are publicly available, outline Victoria’s standard processes for appointing people to government boards and offices. This is a transparent and rigorous process to ensure integrity in appointments. When filling a board vacancy, consideration must be given to the mix of skills and expertise, lived experience, personal qualities, diversity and gender balance of existing board members. This amendment would inappropriately cut across that process.

Supporting this bill will make Albert Park safer during the construction of the largest temporary race circuit in the world. Public access will be maximised within the period where safe to do so. After further discussions on this bill, the government has a set of amendments, and I seek to have those provided. They deal with, firstly, an additional consideration which ministers must consider when declaring a declared area; secondly, early notification of declared public access areas; and thirdly, a new annual compensation scheme to complement the existing scheme to ensure that tenants and businesses impacted by an extended race period are eligible for compensation. As I said, I would like those circulated now.

Furthermore, as a show of good faith, the government would like to circulate a map of Albert Park, showing the proposed areas to be declared by the AGPC as public access areas for the 2026 race period, and accordingly, I seek that that be circulated as well.

That being the case, I think I have covered off in dealing with most of the issues that have been raised by speakers this afternoon, but I understand we will be going into committee, and I am happy to deal with further issues as they may arise.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (16:09)

Georgie CROZIER: I might ask a number of questions in clause 1, if I may, just in the interests of time, rather than going clause by clause. My first question is: was the extension from seven days to 21 – we have outlined that, and we have had the debate around the safety concerns – requested by Formula One Management or was it initiated by the government?

Gayle TIERNEY: It was both, because they had conversations over a number of incidents that had happened, so it was instigated as a result of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation as well as WorkSafe.

Georgie CROZIER: So given those comments and the incidents – I know that there was, and I referred to in the debate, graffiti and vandalism – was there a particular incident that sparked this extension that put somebody’s life at risk, or was there just a discussion around the consideration that it was potentially going to put somebody’s life at risk?

Gayle TIERNEY: It was a series of discussions. In addition to that, there was theft of equipment and there were also fires lit as well, which was quite concerning. But of course there were also a number of near misses in terms of equipment and people being potentially injured.

Georgie CROZIER: Given there are issues around, as you said, theft, vandalism and some incidents that people were concerned about, why would you not increase the security to ensure those incidents and crimes are not occurring?

Gayle TIERNEY: That was done as well.

Georgie CROZIER: To what extent?

Gayle TIERNEY: Extra security was employed, and that is reviewed definitely on an annual basis. But if required, because of increased incidents or if there is a view that it is not adequate, then there are further discussions in terms of increasing the security.

Georgie CROZIER: Seven days to 21 days is quite a significant amount of time. Given what you have described, a fire was lit. It could have been a little fire; it could have been an extensive fire. It could have been potentially dangerous; it could have been just a bit of smoke. Theft of equipment is not an overly onerous issue around safety, but I understand that there are concerns around people coming into the area. My question is: was the extension of the race period anything to do with the extension of the grand prix contract, and was this taken into consideration as well in relation to that contract extension?

Gayle TIERNEY: They would be matters that I would not be aware of for obvious reasons. I am not the minister, and I think that is probably also a question that is probably bound up with commercial in confidence. But can I say that in terms of safety issues, as I said in my summing up, for people on scooters, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers of cars, there were a number of near misses that were of concern to all those that had a connection with the grand prix.

Georgie CROZIER: I know Ms Copsey has got a line of questions, but if I could just finish, I will hand over to her. I understand there are issues around safety, but scooters and people going around Albert Park happen all the time. Are you saying that these incidents happened in that 21-day period, or did they happen in the seven-day period? I can see the adviser saying 21. Thank you very much for that confirmation.

I do understand that you are not going to be able to provide the details of the contract. However, I think it is important to understand whether that was a consideration, given the discussions of government with the grand prix corporation. Can you comment on that?

Gayle TIERNEY: I think it is fair to say, given that there was an interface between local community activity, whether it be from pedestrians, cyclists or whatever, and the construction, as I said, of something quite significant in terms of temporary seating and other facilities, that interface often resulted in near misses – and injuries as well, I am informed.

Georgie CROZIER: ‘How many injuries?’ is the first question.

My next question – you mentioned the community. Could you provide to the committee what consultation occurred with the residents and the community interests in the Albert Park precinct who are affected by the changes, Parks Victoria also – what input did they have? – and any other members of the community that utilise the services, prior to the drafting of this legislation?

Gayle TIERNEY: In terms of injuries and near misses, it was primarily pedestrians and cyclists who were going through the park, and sometimes they were also doing it in unauthorised areas and construction areas where they should not have been in the first place.

In terms of consultation, the consultation has been occurring on a consistent basis, I am advised, with all of the community tenant organisations at Albert Park. There is also a review at the conclusion of each year of the race to see what the learnings were and whether other changes or improvements need to be put in place. And of course Parks Victoria has been involved in the consultations as well.

Georgie CROZIER: I will hand over to Ms Copsey, but what were the learnings, Minister, from the feedback from tenants?

Gayle TIERNEY: I said it in a general sense, that that is an exercise, a mechanism, that is used by the grand prix corporation and others at the end of each session. I do not have that sort of information, but that is –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Gayle TIERNEY: Sorry?

Georgie CROZIER: Does the government have the information?

Gayle TIERNEY: Well, some of it is information like the number of injuries and incidents that have occurred that make it more difficult for there to be a safe environment for all concerned.

Georgie CROZIER: I have got more questions, but I will hand over to Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Thank you, Ms Crozier. I also have questions on this topic. I want to understand if I have heard the minister correctly in this committee stage. When you are talking about incidents with pedestrians and cyclists, are you referring to people simply being in areas that the grand prix do not want them to be? Does a near miss or something mean a person being in an area that they are not supposed to be?

Gayle TIERNEY: My understanding is that there were a number of categories. One was being on a construction site when you should not be on a construction site. As we all know, in terms of construction sites, you need to be authorised, you need to have the proper equipment and you need to have a purpose to be there. Also there were injuries that were a result of equipment – cranes, stands, seating, all of those things – being moved around when there were pedestrians, cyclists and others undertaking activities in close proximity to that activity.

Katherine COPSEY: Obviously, as the statement of compatibility says, this bill severely limits the freedom of movement of the general public to a public park reserve during the race period. What methods have you looked at – I know we have talked about security in your answer to Ms Crozier – that would have been less invasive and less of an imposition on the general public than the one that the government has landed on with this bill? What other mechanisms for controlling this stated risk did you consider?

Gayle TIERNEY: The imperative in all of this was to ensure that there is and continues to be safety. Again, this is, as I understand it, the largest temporary racetrack in the world. That was the thing that was at the forefront of everyone’s minds when trying to work through this. Again, in my summing up, as I stated, you either accept that there were some serious safety concerns and you accept that WorkSafe had also made a determination or you do not. It is pretty simple. Indeed the letter from the CEO of WorkSafe to the Deputy Premier said:

I write to you regarding the Victorian Government’s Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill 2025 that is currently before the Parliament of Victoria.

WorkSafe Victoria acknowledges that the Australian F1 Grand Prix is a major event for Victoria and continues to grow year on year. WorkSafe has previously discussed with the Australian Grand Prix Corporation concerns regarding the safety of workers and the public including pedestrians, cyclists and dog walkers on site at Albert Park.

Under the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation must do everything reasonably practicable to protect the health and safety of workers and members of the public, including providing a safe working environment. In providing additional time for contractors on site, the proposed amendments would have the effect of reducing safety risks and hazards associated with construction and mobile plant.

As we have for many years, we will continue to work with the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to reduce workplace harm associated with this major event.

I think that is pretty short.

Katherine COPSEY: Thank you, Minister, for that information, but I asked if you had considered if there was a more proportionate response to controlling these risks. I understand the evidence that you are asserting supports the government’s position. I am interested to know whether WorkSafe’s contribution to this came after the government had developed its proposal in relation to shutting the community out of this park for three weeks. Returning to the question I asked previously, did you consider another option that did not involve shutting the community out of the park for three weeks to respond to this risk?

Gayle TIERNEY: I reiterate that I am not the minister; I am representing the minister in committee today. It is my understanding that in terms of those involved in making this decision, it essentially went to the heart of what was the safest and most efficient way of dealing with these safety concerns, and to extend it to extra days was considered to be the most appropriate measure.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I am wondering if you could table the letter that was provided from WorkSafe to the Deputy Premier, please.

Gayle TIERNEY: My understanding is that it already has been tabled, but I am happy to.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you. I asked because when the opposition requested stuff, there were, I think, selective points provided to them. So we have not seen the letter in full. But thank you for that confirmation.

Gayle TIERNEY: It is pretty hard to be selective with that letter.

Georgie CROZIER: Look, I appreciate what the concerns were from WorkSafe, but we have had a few near misses and we have had a fire – I do not know how extended it was. I think we have got a right to ask what the concerns were, given the impacts to the community, and to understand what has gone on here, given that we do not know the details of the contract and you cannot answer about whether that was a consideration for the extension. Nevertheless I will move on.

I would like to go to the issue around the map, which has been circulated to members, and around access. The map obviously, for anyone who is watching this or reading about it in Hansard, defines the Albert Park Lake in orange. Surrounding lines are in red, around the boundary of the lake and various roads that I can determine, plus a number of buildings are designated in red, and then there are blue or purple zones, which are large, extensive parts of the park, as well as yellow. In the interests of the community and for everybody involved, I am wondering if you could explain to the committee the map and how that in a practical sense will ensure that the community have access and that sporting groups and businesses that are operating in these defined areas can continue to do so, given the assurances that you have provided to the opposition and the work that the opposition have done in the in the break that we have just had to get the amendments that the government will be moving to ensure that compensation is paid to tenants and that the public have greater access to the park.

Gayle TIERNEY: Just to indicate for the record, I am happy to answer any questions on this, because our position is quite clear and the letter from WorkSafe is quite clear as well. There are not any real grey matters here for the government in respect to this, but I am more than happy to entertain whatever questions you might ask.

Now, in terms of the map, is this part of your electorate?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes, it is – absolutely.

Gayle TIERNEY: So you are pretty familiar with this area.

Georgie CROZIER: Very. My constituents, Minister, have been reaching out to me, and I want to get some clarification on their behalf.

Gayle TIERNEY: Okay. I understand that there have been some discussions, and the net result is that we are making sure that we are providing as much access as we can, particularly to those tied up with certain sporting facilities that are there.

It is very hard if you have got constituents that are listening in or trying to watch when there is one piece of A4 paper in front of us and it is colour coded, but I can assure you that what we have here is the lake and the surrounding activities.

Those activities that are in yellow are the public access areas to be provided during weeks 1 and 3 of the extended race period. A lot of that is ovals and I think the bowls club and a number of other things that are on the perimeter. So it makes it easier for those who are participating in those sports and who are club members to actually walk or be in a car and get into the facility that they are seeking. For the hatched lake area, lake access for tenants is to be provided on a case-by-case basis working with the AGPC operations team. So they will be people essentially that would be members of different things, not just people turning up thinking, ‘It’s a nice day and we’ll go for a bit of a sail.’ The blue shows those areas where there is no public access, which is consistent with the current F1 build program where AGPC takes over these parts of the park in the lead-up to the event. The red shows areas which will now no longer be available during the extended race period for public access due to unacceptable safety risks. What you might see on this map in reference to that last point I made is what looks like a road that is red – that will be closed. The situation we had there, by all accounts, was that people were using it as their own personal racetrack and were actually running into barricades, and so that has been shut based on safety concerns and the unacceptable safety risks that have emerged.

Georgie CROZIER: I might just go into a little bit more detail because it is difficult, as we both acknowledge. The lake is in red, so for the three weeks will that be open to rowing clubs or not? Or is it just the second week under the new arrangements with the coalition? Are the rowing clubs getting access to the lake for the first and the third week, but not the middle week, is my first question.

Gayle TIERNEY: The hatched lake area, which is orange, that will be the area that I mentioned earlier where you would have access, if you are a club member of the various water sporting clubs, in weeks one and three, yes.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you for that clarification, that is what I was seeking. The yellow areas – and if you look at the map towards the north-west or towards the city, I will show you where I am talking about; that is towards the city – go bang onto the lake. Now, those yellow areas you said have access in weeks 1 and 3. Is that correct?

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes.

Georgie CROZIER: That footpath around the lake is excluded from any access for the full three weeks. Is that correct?

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes.

Georgie CROZIER: The buildings that are attached to the lake, like the Power House and others that are in the red – I am sorry, I am pointing and showing – what access do they have during the three-week period?

Gayle TIERNEY: Just for clarity, Ms Crozier, do you mean the one near the bowls club and the one closer to the lake and the one over here? Is that correct?

Georgie CROZIER: Yes. That is the Power House. That is one of the – I cannot see. But yes, I think your advisers will be able to assist me.

Gayle TIERNEY: For the record, it is admin access for the relevant clubs.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay. And in relation to the golf club, which is also an important part of this precinct, is the Albert Park golf club affected by the extended race period, or is it already closed for an extended period due to a pre-existing arrangement with the grand prix corporation?

Gayle TIERNEY: There is a pre-arrangement in existence, and they are closed for four weeks. That is not new.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay. And are there any other tenants already engaged in commercial arrangements longer than the current seven-day race period with the corporation, such as what you just confirmed with the golf club?

Gayle TIERNEY: There are arrangements in place, but now, with weeks 1 and 3, there are currently conversations going on with those businesses. And then of course there is the compensation scheme, which we will deal with a little bit later. That would kick in, one would assume, in terms of discussions in relation to things like that.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, who developed this map?

Gayle TIERNEY: The AGPC.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, who has been consulted in developing the access arrangements that are depicted in this map?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding that the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions (DJSIR) and the Grand Prix Corporation consulted with, I am advised, all of the stakeholders that are located on that site.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, perhaps you mean all of the stakeholders that occupy those marked tenancies, because I am pretty sure that there are stakeholders within the blue area of this map in particular. I am pretty sure there are community stakeholders who have not seen this map or been consulted.

Gayle TIERNEY: For the record, contact was made with all tenants, I am advised.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you take me through again why the lake path, which is this red line that goes around the lake itself, the footpath, needs to be closed given it can be accessed through this yellow hatched area, the aquatic centre?

Gayle TIERNEY: It will be for weeks 1, 2 and 3, and it is an operational requirement in relation to the grand prix given that there are temporary constructions that are very close to that pathway.

Katherine COPSEY: Just so I am clear, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation is unable to safely carry out its operations without affecting residents and citizens of Victoria walking around a footpath around a lake, and the government is going to let them take that away from people. You have not tried to ameliorate that; you have not tried to find out if there is a less intrusive way for this to be achieved.

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, the objective here is safety. Given that there is activity around this area, it is an area that is currently shut down for seven days and it is proposed that it will be shut down for three weeks.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, why is the Australian Grand Prix Corporation so bad at doing the event set-up for this event when you compare it to international examples like the Las Vegas Grand Prix, which manages to do its set-up and pack down with just a few days of closure period?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, I cannot comment in terms of what occurs in other jurisdictions. What I can comment on are the views of those that have been involved in these discussions. Again, the imperative for all of those involved was to absolutely minimise any prospect of safety concerns.

Katherine COPSEY: With respect, Minister, it is entirely relevant. The events are similar in scale and size. I do not understand why Victorian ministers and departments are not asking the grand prix corporation to achieve a standard that we see is entirely possible in other cities. Why should Melburnians suffer a greater imposition because the grand prix cannot get its act together?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, you are assuming a few things in that comment, which I disagree with. But regardless, you are also asking me for an opinion and to make comment on venues that I am not acquainted with, and it is my understanding that the imperative was to get this venue sorted in terms of the applications of safety requirements.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, with all due respect, you are not contending that the Albert Park site, which is largely open space sporting venues and a well-loved nature reserve, is more complex than the Las Vegas strip in terms of pedestrian activity or commercial activity? Surely you can make a comparison between those two and see that Melbourne should be an easy site for them to manage without having a huge imposition, as compared to Vegas.

Gayle TIERNEY: Ms Copsey, I am just not going to be drawn on other venues that I am not familiar with; it is just inappropriate. I just do not think it is proper or acceptable for me to make comment on situations that I am not familiar with. I certainly would not be familiar with the Las Vegas arrangement. I do not have a map or an understanding of how that precinct works at all – whether there is a grand prix applied to it or not.

Katherine COPSEY: Were you briefed on other international grands prix, out of interest?

Gayle TIERNEY: Personally, no, I was not.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I thank you for your response earlier around whether there were alternatives to the three-week lockout considered, and I appreciate you have said several times in this debate that you are representing the minister responsible. I just want to confirm my understanding from your earlier answer. I took your response to say that you were not aware of any alternative to the three-week lockout that had been considered by the minister.

Gayle TIERNEY: I am prepared to seek advice from the minister as to what he may have entertained, but personally, no, and I do not think you would expect me to.

I have sought advice in terms of the general question, Ms Copsey, about ‘Las Vegas can do it, why not Albert Park?’ – along those lines. We are the second biggest grand prix in the world. They have 150,000 less people. We are the largest temporary circuit. There is a three- to four-month build in Las Vegas, and that is at a cost of $400 million.

Katherine COPSEY: That is all useful information. The question I had just asked was about whether there had been alternatives to the three-week lockout considered by the actual minister.

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding that throughout all of this, as I have said and I will restate again, the objective was to ensure that we have got the safest environment in the construction and the disassembly of the area. In terms of other options, there were some examples, as I understand it. I am not familiar with the detail of that, but I can say that the safety considerations were overwhelmingly better in terms of the option that was landed on here in terms of extending it to 21 days.

Katherine COPSEY: Did the minister consider a shorter period?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, the answer is the safety considerations outweighed a whole range of other considerations, Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: Given you have just outlined these overwhelming safety considerations that the government has been convinced of and you have also outlined that we have the largest temporary circuit of any Formula One event in the world, during this term of government has the government considered the relocation of the Australian Grand Prix to a purpose-built event space?

Gayle TIERNEY: No.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, just going back to the exclusion area and the incidents that you have referred to. We have heard from community members who are concerned by the safety implications of the extended lockout period and the extensive closure of the pedestrian and cycling network that this is going to cause. Many people, myself included, use the cycling and walking paths through Albert Park for a safe commute. What consideration has been given to the dangers that will be created for pedestrians and cyclists by losing access to these safe paths for the period of this lockout?

Gayle TIERNEY: One of the considerations, of course, resulted in the yellow areas of the map, and that was to enable sporting club members in particular to be able to access those areas without having to go through the park as such, so that they can reach those amenities on the border of the park, Ms Copsey.

Katherine COPSEY: With respect, Minister, that does not answer my question. My question was about people using the walking and cycling paths to get through the park. How will the risks that are created for them by having to go onto the busy road network be addressed by this proposal?

Gayle TIERNEY: In terms of cyclists going through the park while this construction is underway, that has already been deemed to be unhelpful and unsafe. In terms of going onto the roads, the same rules and conditions that would apply to any other cyclist that would be using those roads and not be going through the park would apply.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I do not know if you quite understand this. People are normally able to access accessways through the park. Admittedly, they get progressively shut down over a period of months as the infrastructure proliferates and starts to tear up the park and section off areas behind fences, where people cannot go. But there is usually the ability for people to still make their way through. This is a really important not only recreational but commuting link for people in the inner south. We have heard directly from constituents who are already concerned that they are going to be pushed onto the busy road network, and by extending the lockout period, you are worsening that risk that already gets realised annually for people in this region. What is the government’s plan to deal with that risk that you are now creating, and how are you putting that in your calculus of this overarching emphasis you have on safety?

Gayle TIERNEY: As I have already stated, Ms Copsey – it is an answer that you do not like, but it is the answer that I will continue to give – in terms of the safety concerns about cyclists and pedestrians being near movable construction sites and cranes and other equipment, the imperative is to make sure that there is a reduction in safety hazards.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I will tell you for sure, having had many, many experiences going down the pencil-thin painted bike lane along Canterbury Road, my personal risk assessment is that people are not as safe on the road as they are on a shared path, which is protected from traffic, which is usually provided by the park.

I am going to ask the question a different way: has the minister received advice on how to mitigate the risk posed to cyclists and pedestrians by being forced onto the arterial road network?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is my understanding that there are a number of conversations that are being conducted and there are discussions around how safety mitigations can be worked through, particularly for cyclists and of course a number of other user groups. The suggestion is that user groups and individuals should make contact with the grand prix corporation, who are undertaking those discussions with a variety of groups at the moment.

Katherine COPSEY: So this map is not the final map?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is the final map in terms of the general discussions that have led us to this point. But if there are some other tweaks that can assist in terms of the issues like the one that you have raised, then it would be silly to say that it has to be set in concrete. There has to be community consultation, and it has got to be on an ongoing basis. To then say, ‘Well, it’s not the final map,’ I think flies in the face of the objective that you are trying to seek.

Katherine COPSEY: Well, in one sense that is reassuring, but I think it just reiterates to me that there is not a lot of clarity for community users of the park on what the government and the opposition’s intent is with this set of amendments and these access agreements that are yet to be finalised.

I just want to go now to some of the amendments the government has put forward and ask a couple of questions on those – unless Ms Crozier had more questions in relation to the areas in the map.

Georgie Crozier: Not on the areas.

Katherine COPSEY: Okay. The first listed amendment – I am referring to an email we have received from the minister’s office outlining the government’s amendments, if that helps to follow along – is on consideration of declaring areas and the race periods, which will allow the minister, our understanding is, to have regard for the requirements of the event and the safety and security needs when declaring the area to be impacted by the race period. I just wanted to confirm that the factors that the minister are going to be considering in declaring the area to be impacted by the race period are safety and security needs, and that does not include a consideration of the community’s right of access to the park.

Gayle TIERNEY: Operational and safety considerations may include but are not limited to the grand prix event; build and dismantle programs for things such as grandstands, activations and other amenities, where this may interact with proposed public safe access areas; and any safety risks that could be posed to workers and the general public as a result of providing public access in a particular place.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I wonder if you can highlight for me how the community, who are not the grand prix corporation advocating for its own interests, have input into that ministerial decision-making process? This is the consideration for declaring areas and the race period – new sections 27A to 27G – in the new clause that the government is proposing. How can the community have input to that process?

Gayle TIERNEY: That is a process that is undertaken by the minister on the advice that he seeks from, on this occasion, his department and other organisations, and like with any other issue, I would suggest that community members, who are well known for making their voices heard, write to the minister and have their views voiced through email, correspondence or whatever.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, that does not sound like a very formal consultation process to me – that community members should just be aware that the government is dealing on a day-to-day basis with requests from the grand prix for further access and exclusive use of private land and so should just write to the minister and hope that he will take that into account.

Gayle TIERNEY: I have also mentioned that there is an advisory committee that is going to be established as well, and that will be as a result of the stakeholders that are in that area. That would be a logical place in which you would raise issues and concerns as well.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I do not expect you obviously to disclose the details of the contract, but we are trying to work through a lot of these things. Can I just ask: back in 2023 when this contract was signed by the former Premier, Daniel Andrews, was the current minister involved in that, or was he cut out completely?

Gayle TIERNEY: I would need to check who the minister was at that time.

Georgie Crozier: It was Steve. I’ve checked.

Gayle TIERNEY: I am advised it was the former minister that was involved in those negotiations.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay, so it was Minister Pakula –

Gayle Tierney: That is what I am advised.

Georgie CROZIER: who is now the chair. Oh, there we are. Wow. Thank you for that clarification. I suppose it was, because there was a lead-up. There was quite a significant amount of public information around the fear of losing the grand prix, and the Premier had to step in. So it makes sense that Minister Pakula was at the helm of those initial negotiations. Of course we had COVID that shut the city down and caused chaos throughout the place, especially with the grand prix. So thank you for that clarification.

Katherine COPSEY: I just have one other question about the map. I understand your advice to the chamber is that this map has been prepared by the grand prix corporation. But I want to understand if, to your knowledge, there has been any consideration of equity of access for community members down the southern end of the park. Correct me if I am wrong here, but it looks to me as though vehicular access is mainly at this end where the aquatic centre is, which looks like this little tail.

Gayle TIERNEY: Yes.

Katherine COPSEY: Can you clarify for me if there is any other vehicular access point that is available during the three-week lockout period for residents?

Gayle TIERNEY: The site that you nominated, Ms Copsey, is not car access and is not vehicle access, but it is walking access. There are other roads which are within the yellow area where there is access. I have requested on your behalf a more detailed examination of those access points, if you wish, and there are people here that are more than happy to provide that assistance to you.

Katherine COPSEY: Just for the record, what I will state is I am concerned around whether there has been any consideration given to the many surrounding suburbs that abut Albert Park and the many residents that use it for recreational use. I want to make sure that in whatever access regime is figured out people are not having to travel from one end of the suburb to another simply to enter the park. I just put that as a comment for the record.

I move:

1.   Clause 1, lines 5 and 6, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

This is the amendment that I have spoken to during my second-reading speech, which has the effect of retaining the one-week lockout period and not supporting the government’s extension of the lockout of the community from Albert Park. As I have said extensively, the imposition on the local community by the grand prix is already too great. Every year it is months on end, actually, that the park is impacted, that the wildlife is impacted and that people steadily lose the quiet enjoyment of this vital public asset. It already takes months and months for the grounds to recover. I know that sporting groups and community groups are regularly disrupted, losing huge amounts because of the existing lockout period but also all of the disruption and interruption that is associated with this event. It is pretty galling that a Labor government is furthering the Kennett legacy of taking over this park for a big corporate event. The Greens do not support it. This amendment in my name has the effect of retaining the current already egregious one-week lockout.

Gayle TIERNEY: The government will not be supporting this proposed amendment. We have explained our position throughout the course of the debate in the lower house as well as here, and it is also contained in my summing-up speech.

Georgie CROZIER: The coalition will not be supporting the Greens amendment. Despite the concerns that we have raised, we have made some inroads with government, as I have highlighted in my speech, and we have also acknowledged the support of the grand prix.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Copsey’s amendment 1 be agreed to. This tests her amendments 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Council divided on amendment:

Clause 6 (17:22)

Gayle TIERNEY: I move:

1.   Clause 6, page 4, line 14, omit “information.” and insert “information; and”.

2.   Clause 6, page 4, after line 14 insert –

“(e) unless section 27CA applies, be made within one month after a declaration under section 27 of a declared area is made.”.

3.   Clause 6, page 5, after line 17 insert –

“27CA Minister may direct Corporation to make public access area declaration

(1) If the Corporation does not make a public access area declaration within one month after a declaration under section 27 of a declared area is made, the Minister may –

(a)   request that the Corporation provide the reasons no public access area declaration was made; and

(b)   direct the Corporation to make a public access area declaration.

(2) Before giving a direction under subsection (1)(b), the Minister must have regard to –

(a)   the operational requirements of the Formula One event in respect of which the declared area will be in force; and

(b)   safety considerations related to the event.”.

Georgie CROZIER: The coalition will be supporting the government’s amendment, given the discussions that the opposition have had with the government, and thank the government for taking into consideration those concerns raised throughout that process that the opposition has undertaken on behalf of the community.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be opposing this amendment. This amendment, in my understanding, gives the minister the ability to declare access areas where the grand prix corporation has failed to do so. Therefore we support the minister having this discretion, though we do have concerns, as I outlined during the committee debate, that the only considerations that it appears the minister has to take into account are around the safety and security needs as determined, as we have seen, by the grand prix, which are pretty draconian. We would implore the minister to also, in making these decisions, consider the right of the public to access and put greater weight in future considerations on trying to balance the outcomes being sought to be achieved here to make sure that safety is not being used as an excuse to lock people out of a public reserve.

Gayle TIERNEY: Just in response to that can I also restate that I have been advised by the minister in the other place that Parks Victoria will establish a new Albert Park advisory committee to facilitate better engagement with the broader Albert Park stakeholder group. I think that is a good mechanism or vehicle to have a lot of the issues that you have raised today addressed through that organisation.

Katherine COPSEY: I appreciate the minister conveying that information to the chamber. What is the process for organisations and individuals who consider that they ought to be part of that advisory committee? How should they access it?

Gayle TIERNEY: That will be as a result of this bill going through. It has not been established yet, but it will, and it is a commitment. I know that Parks Victoria are already starting to draft what the process might look like.

Katherine COPSEY: It is disappointing that these things have not been worked out before we are on the floor of the house debating this bill, I will reiterate. It is frustrating for community members who did not feel that the consultation was adequate to begin with, but I welcome the commitment you have made there. I have, in the course of this debate, received a query from a community member who comments that Lake Alive currently monitor the health of the bird life, including the iconic black swans, in Albert Park, and they do that on a daily basis. The query is: how is that going to continue? Perhaps in relation to the advisory group structure you have just spoken about, could you provide an undertaking that there will be some mechanism considered to enable this important citizen-science activity to continue?

Gayle TIERNEY: Without wanting to go off on another particular path, this is a matter that I know that Ms Purcell has raised generally in terms of the swans on the lake. There is the ability to continue to talk through those issues, because the health and the environment of Albert Park Lake, including the swans and the birdlife, are incredibly important.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 7 to 15 agreed to.

New clause 15A (17:27)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

2.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 15 –

‘15A Membership

(1) In section 10(1) of the Principal Act, after “Council” insert “by notice published in the Government Gazette”.

(2) After section 10(2) of the Principal Act insert –

“(2A)   Before appointing a member under this section, the Governor in Council must be satisfied that the person being appointed has not served as a Minister, Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary or ministerial officer at any time in the 2 years immediately preceding the appointment.”.’.

This amendment is pertinent given some of the discussions we just had in committee. The effect of this is to create greater transparency and also a bit more distance between the government of the day and the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. The effect of this is that when the appointment of members of the grand prix board or the chair position is being undertaken, the appointment process simply will be notified in the Government Gazette so that it is a public process. The other part of this amendment is also a cooling-off period so that someone who has in the past two years been a minister, a cabinet secretary, a parliamentary secretary or ministerial office is not eligible for the position. Given the discussion that we just had in committee, where we have understood that the current board chair was involved in negotiations that I think are pertinent to the matters that we have discussed this afternoon in this bill, I think this is a really sensible amendment. Those opposite who are critical of the government’s revolving door on this issue, I would welcome your support on this amendment. It is something that we could actually advance to improve the governance here and make sure that the community is getting a fair hearing and not getting favourable treatment delivered to the grand prix corporation by the government of the day.

Georgie CROZIER: The coalition will not be supporting the Greens amendment, but I do understand the intent and I do share some of those concerns you raised. I think the questioning has given us a bit more transparency around what has gone on, not to the full extent that perhaps some of us would like, but nevertheless I do understand the intent. However, we will not be supporting your amendment at this point.

Gayle TIERNEY: I dealt with this in my summing-up speech, and again I reiterate that the government’s appointment and remuneration guidelines, which are publicly available, outline Victoria’s standard processes for appointing people to government boards and offices. When filling a board vacancy, consideration must be given to the mix of skills, expertise, lived experience, personal qualities, diversity and gender balance of existing board members, so we will not be supporting this proposed amendment.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. I think that this is a sensible measure. I also do not like the revolving door stuff that I see going on, so I will be supporting this.

Council divided on new clause:

Clause 20 (17:34)

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, clause 20 relates to the new function of giving power to the grand prix corporation to conduct events other than motorsport events. That is subject to the approval of the minister, and there has been some discussion around what those events look like. Are there any limitations on what those events would entail? Could it be anything, or is it particularly related to motorsports?

Gayle TIERNEY: As I said in my summing-up speech, the events do not necessarily have to be connected to motorsports. It can be a variety of things.

Georgie CROZIER: If it is not related to motorsport, why does the Australian Grand Prix Corporation have to be involved in this, given they are only operating for a short period of time in the park?

Gayle TIERNEY: Because they have a contract for the space for that period of time, and as I said in my summing-up speech, it enables the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to have events that lead to increased revenue and then rely less on state government moneys for support.

Georgie CROZIER: So it is only for the three-week period – is that correct? Or does it extend out of that timeframe?

Gayle TIERNEY: It is not restricted to the actual Albert Park. It can be, for example, an F1 expo at the convention centre. In fact it can be other parts of Victoria as well.

Georgie CROZIER: I appreciate that, and that sort of makes sense to me. It is a motorsport-related exhibition or something that might go on, and I do not have a problem with any of that. I am just trying to understand why that cannot be done through the major events component of government without having this tied into the Australian Grand Prix Corporation.

Gayle TIERNEY: As you probably know, the major events activity is very active. This just provides an opportunity, as I said, for the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to raise revenues so that there is not such a reliance on the state government in terms of the contributions it makes.

Georgie CROZIER: Was that part of the contract that the government put in and insisted upon so that it would reduce taxpayer-funded money to the grand prix?

Gayle TIERNEY: This is potentially a commercial-in-confidence matter, and I am not in a position to provide further information in respect to that, Ms Crozier.

Clause agreed to; clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (17:38)

Gayle TIERNEY: I move:

4.   Clause 22, line 23, omit “In section 27(b)” and insert “(1) In section 27(b)”.

5.   Clause 22, after line 24 insert –

‘(2) At the end of section 27 of the Principal Act insert –

“(2)   Before making a declaration under subsection (1)(b), the Ministers must have regard to –

(a)   the operational requirements of the Formula One event in respect of which the declared area will be in force; and

(b)   safety considerations related to the event.”.’.

Katherine COPSEY: Similar to the rationale for the previous amendments, we will not be opposing these amendments but hold similar reservations that there is not a consideration by the minister of the right of public access under these amendments.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 (17:39)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

5.   Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly –

Clause 25, line 24, omit “$200 000” and insert “$500 000”.

The effect of this suggested amendment is very simple. This takes the $200,000 figure for payment by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to Parks Victoria and increases it to $500,000.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is a suggested amendment, so if it is agreed to, this clause has to be postponed.

Gayle TIERNEY: I went through this in my summing up. The house amendment is to increase the figure to $200,000 to keep up with inflation, but what we have done also is to create a mechanism so that in terms of future adjustments, they can be done more readily than what currently is the case.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this suggested amendment, mainly due to the concerns I had before about what it is going to cost to clean up some of this stuff. I do note, though, as the government has said, that there are mechanisms to do it for other amounts in the future. But yes, I will be supporting this suggested amendment.

Georgie CROZIER: The coalition will not be supporting the Greens suggested amendment.

Council divided on suggested amendment:

New clauses 25A and 25B (17:44)

Gayle TIERNEY: I move:

Insert the following new clauses to follow clause 25 –

‘25A Division 1 of Part 3 heading inserted

Before section 26 of the Principal Act, insert the following Division heading –

“Division 1 – General”.

25B New Division 2 of Part 3 inserted

At the end of Part 3 of the Principal Act insert –

“Division 2 – Annual compensation scheme

42AA   Definitions for this Division

In this Division –

annual compensation scheme means a scheme approved under section 42AAC(3);

direct loss method has the meaning given in section 42AAI;

eligible Albert Park tenant means an entity that holds a lease, licence or other agreement in the declared area for a race period in respect of a year where the lease, licence or other agreement was entered into before 1 January 2026;

fixed amount method has the meaning given in section 42AAH.

42AAB   Corporation to make compensation payments to eligible Albert Park tenants

The Corporation must pay compensation to eligible Albert Park tenants in accordance with the annual compensation scheme.

42AAC   Annual compensation scheme

(1)   Each year, the Corporation must develop a draft annual compensation scheme for the purpose of payments under section 42AAB.

(2)   Not later than 3 months after the end of the race period in relation to a year, the Corporation must prepare and submit the draft annual compensation scheme to the Minister for approval.

(3)   The Minister may approve the draft annual compensation scheme if satisfied it is appropriate to do so, having regard to –

(a)   the business plan under section 25; and

(b)   in the case of any fixed amount method, the overall approach to assessing and calculating amounts.

42AAD   Eligibility for compensation under the annual compensation scheme

(1)   An eligible Albert Park tenant is eligible for compensation under the annual compensation scheme if the eligible Albert Park tenant has suffered direct losses or expenses as a result of a race period for a year being a period not exceeding 21 days.

(2)   An entity is not eligible for compensation under the annual compensation scheme if a lease, licence or other agreement in the declared area to which the entity is a party is entered into on or after 1 January 2026.

(3)   An eligible Albert Park tenant may be eligible for compensation under the annual compensation scheme even if the tenant has closed the business or other operation conducted pursuant to a lease, licence or other agreement in the declared area for a race period in respect of a year during that race period.

42AAE   Compensation under section 30(5) not affected

Nothing in this Division affects the operation of section 30(5) in relation to an eligible Albert Park tenant.

42AAF   Corporation may request information

For the purposes of developing and administering the annual compensation scheme in accordance with this Division, the Corporation may request an eligible Albert Park tenant to provide any information necessary for the Corporation to make a proper assessment of the compensation payable to that tenant, including specifying a time for the provision of that information.

42AAG   Compensation to be by fixed amount method or direct losses method

(1)   The Corporation must offer an eligible Albert Park tenant compensation from the annual compensation scheme by a fixed amount method based on a formula developed by the Corporation for calculating a fixed amount of compensation approved by the Minister in the annual compensation scheme approval.

(2)   If the eligible Albert Park tenant offered compensation under subsection (1) elects not to accept the compensation by the fixed amount method, the tenant must –

(a)   advise the Corporation that the tenant seeks compensation by the direct losses method for direct losses incurred due to the period of the race period in respect of a year being a period not exceeding 21 days; and

(b)   provide in support independently audited financial statements.

42AAH   What does the Corporation consider for fixed amount method of compensation?

The Corporation must consider the following when an eligible Albert Park tenant chooses compensation by the fixed amount method –

(a)   the duration of the race period in respect of the year, being the race period minus 7 days and not exceeding a maximum of 14 days;

(b)   the number of days the eligible Albert Park tenant was directly affected by the period referred to in paragraph (a);

(c)   estimated losses by the eligible Albert Park tenant as a direct result of the period referred to in paragraph (a);

(d)   whether the eligible Albert Park tenant is entitled to compensation under section 30(5) or any other payment or remuneration under an arrangement entered into between the Corporation and the tenant;

(e)   any other matter the Corporation considers relevant.

42AAI   What does the Corporation consider for direct losses method of compensation?

(1)   The Corporation must consider the following when an eligible Albert Park tenant chooses compensation by the direct losses method –

(a)   the duration of the race period declared for the year, being the race period minus 7 days and not exceeding a maximum of 14 days;

(b)   the number of days the eligible Albert Park tenant was directly affected by the period referred to in paragraph (a);

(c)   actual quantifiable losses incurred by the eligible Albert Park tenant as a direct result of the period referred to in paragraph (a) which –

(i)   must be supported by independently audited financial statements; and

(ii)   may benchmark direct losses by consideration of losses or profits in a comparison period in the previous year to the current year which are the same days in that previous year as the days for the race period in relation to the current year for which the compensation is sought;

Example

The race period for 2026 is 1 to 21 April 2026. The race period in relation to the year 2025 is 1 to 21 March 2025. The comparison period for losses or profits for the 2026 race period is 1 to 21 April 2025.

(d)   whether the eligible Albert Park tenant is entitled to compensation under section 30(5) or any other payment or remuneration under an arrangement entered into between the Corporation and the tenant;

(e)   any other matter the Corporation considers relevant.

(2)   The Corporation may negotiate an amount of compensation with an eligible Albert Park tenant not exceeding the amount of direct loss claimed by the tenant.”.’.

Georgie CROZIER: I know this is part of the discussion the opposition had with the government, and again I thank the government for being so accommodating. I am just wondering, Minister, if you could provide us with how many tenants are expected to qualify for compensation in this new clause that has been put in and the work that we have done, and will subtenants and licensees be eligible under the definition of an eligible tenant?

Gayle TIERNEY: On the second part, I will seek advice in a moment. In terms of the first part of your question, it will be relatively small in number, as I understand it, but that will be worked through.

Georgie CROZIER: I appreciate you working through that list. When will that list of tenants be made available, do you think?

Gayle TIERNEY: We will take that on notice, but it is active as we speak.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, my understanding is that tenants in this compensation arrangement means, and it says in the definitions, ‘an entity that holds a lease, licence or other agreement in the declared area.’ Could you please provide an example of what an ‘other agreement’ would be?

Gayle TIERNEY: Well, it is fairly clear in terms of what is in. There might be an area that we have not uncovered as yet, so that just provides some leeway for those that are involved in this exercise.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, the concern I have outlined throughout the debate today is that I know for a fact there are community, sporting, environmental and community advocacy organisations that have not been consulted in the development of this compensation scheme. What undertakings can you give to those members who have been excluded from the discussions to date that they will be able to have input into the shape of this compensation scheme?

Gayle TIERNEY: What I can say in terms of how the park operates going forward is in terms of general community members and youth, in a general sense, the advisory committee that is being established is obviously a point that I have raised, as well as the other mechanisms that are utilised often in cases such as this. In terms of compensation, I think it would be probably best to contact Parks Victoria in the first instance so that there is an understanding about the scope, but it is primarily compensation in relation to reduced or impacted business that would otherwise have taken place if the grand prix was not active.

Georgie CROZIER: If I could just follow on from that line of questioning, will it be Parks Victoria who undertake an audit of these tenants, and do they pay for any audit, or does the business or the sporting organisation or whoever have to pay for it? Also, who determines whether the compensation – is that also Parks Victoria, or is it some other body that is looking to see that the compensation is actually fitting with the nominal loss that a business might be incurring?

Gayle TIERNEY: I think that information will be provided from Parks Victoria. They are close to the ground in terms of who the tenants are. Then of course there will be input from the grand prix corporation. But overall what you are really looking for is DJSIR.

Georgie CROZIER: Sorry, I just could not hear. So it is actually the department of jobs, not Parks Victoria –

Gayle TIERNEY: They will be providing information into it because they are the agency on the ground that really understand at a grassroots level what organisations and businesses are there. And of course the grand prix corporation will be involved in discussions, but primarily what you are seeking is what is the anchor organisation from government, and the anchor organisation is DJSIR.

Georgie CROZIER: So it will be DJSIR that will undertake that audit and ensure that Parks Victoria are doing their work?

Gayle TIERNEY: I think they are still working that through. It is a matter that has only recently been resolved, and it is a matter of working out exactly who is there, but all tenants will receive information and an offer to engage.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you, and if you could take that on notice and get some time frames, I would appreciate that.

Gayle TIERNEY: Okay.

Georgie CROZIER: That is all from me.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I just wanted to get clarity on new section 42AAD(1). This is around eligibility for compensation under the annual compensation scheme, and your amendment states:

An … Albert Park tenant is eligible for compensation under the … scheme if the eligible Albert Park tenant has suffered direct losses …

New section 42AAD(2) states:

An entity is not eligible for compensation under the annual compensation scheme if a lease, licence or other agreement in the declared area to which the entity is a party is entered into on or after 1 January 2026.

Minister, can I get clarity? If a person is a current lease, licence or other agreement holder and has to renew or start a new lease, licence or other agreement post 1 January 2026, is that person going to lose eligibility for compensation?

Gayle TIERNEY: If there are new tenants after the date, they will be tenants that actually know that they have walked into an arrangement where there will be a closure for three weeks, so they will not be eligible, but those that are current tenants would be.

Katherine COPSEY: I just want to understand. So that is intended to bar people who are entering the park after 1 January 2026, and it will not automatically exclude current users of the park who are eligible under the compensation scheme?

Gayle TIERNEY: Can I get some clarity? When you talk about users, are you talking about tenants?

Katherine COPSEY: Yes, eligible tenants as defined under the amendment.

Gayle TIERNEY: New tenants will know in their business plan to work around the three weeks. Those that are currently there are those that are impacted, and they would be eligible.

Katherine COPSEY: I am sorry to be pedantic, Minister. I just want to get an understanding. Hypothetically, we have got an eligible user who has a lease that expires, for example, in September 2026, and they have to renew that lease. Would they therefore be ineligible for compensation with the new lease?

Gayle TIERNEY: If they are a current tenant and it expires, then they will be eligible because it is a rolling continuity of the arrangement and the relationship that they have in place.

Georgie CROZIER: My apologies, Minister, just to seek some clarity: so this compensation is to capture everyone from 1994 to 1 January 2026 effectively for tenants that are currently in the park. If somebody exits on 2 January – I will use The Point as an example, a business down there, a restaurant – and a new tenant comes into that location or any other location in the precinct after 1 January, they will not be eligible for any compensation?

Gayle TIERNEY: That is correct.

Georgie CROZIER: So the current tenants will be provided ongoing compensation, but new tenants will not get it. Why is there the differentiation?

Gayle TIERNEY: Again, as I have said, there is an ongoing relationship in terms of current tenants. If that expires, then they will obviously, if they wish to, re-enter an arrangement, and they would qualify because of that, whereas completely new people and their businesses will know when they go through the whole process that there is an impact on their business for a potential three-week period, and therefore they would not qualify for compensation.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will be supporting this amendment, but I am just really concerned that it is not going to adequately respond to the impacts that are being felt by a whole range of park users. For one, it only applies to a quite limited class. The minister has said it is people who basically are already using the park to operate a business. I understand why the government is taking that as a workable definition, but there are a whole range of users that also experience disruption to their civic activities or community activities that will not be eligible, is my understanding, under this compensation scheme. I am also really concerned that it is so time limited. I think that what we have seen over the course of the grand prix’s infiltration of this public reserve is that impacts will continue to grow in the future. Basically, the government is saying with this compensation scheme: ‘Sorry. If you’re coming in in future years, you just have to accept that the grand prix gets its run of the park and the rest of you can go somewhere else during this period and we don’t care about the impacts that this big sporting event is going to have on all the other users of this park.’ So it is something, and we are pleased to see that the government is acknowledging in this legislation the impacts that the grand prix has on park users, but it is not sufficient. I just want to iterate that we do not regard this as sufficiently fixing the inherent problem with this bill, which is that the government is locking people out of a public reserve for a big corporation’s benefit.

Gayle TIERNEY: Well, again, the government’s position is that what is being provided here is an advancement on the current situation in terms of the compensation arrangements. I think that there is significant goodwill to work through these issues with the tenants and those that will be involved in administering the scheme.

New clauses agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (18:00): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Water) (18:00): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the same with amendments.